GoDaddy Statement on Eth.link Domain Registration(aboutus.godaddy.net)
aboutus.godaddy.net
GoDaddy Statement on Eth.link Domain Registration
https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/company-news/news-details/2022/GoDaddy-Statement-on-eth.link-Domain-Registration/default.aspx
163 comments
That’s very informative. Thanks for posting!
> the project has found itself at the mercy of GoDaddy. Welcome to the decentralized web3 we've all been promised!
I admit this had me laughing.
> the project has found itself at the mercy of GoDaddy. Welcome to the decentralized web3 we've all been promised!
I admit this had me laughing.
I tend to think the cyber money hyperventilation on both sides ranges from silly to really annoying, but…
Molly White is hilarious and that site is gold.
She’s (intentionally or not) done a bit of an homage to dealbreaker.com, which is roughly “Wall St. is Going Great” and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys the above.
Top kek.
Molly White is hilarious and that site is gold.
She’s (intentionally or not) done a bit of an homage to dealbreaker.com, which is roughly “Wall St. is Going Great” and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys the above.
Top kek.
Every generation deserves a fuckedcompany.com or two.
I also find jesters and clowns hilarious as well. Some of them don't need to dress up, but just love to professionally complain and grift on top of another grift and point fingers at everyone being an extreme crypto supporter.
Eventually, they will give up just like the other critics did and it will be on to the next one.
Eventually, they will give up just like the other critics did and it will be on to the next one.
In general I agree. The cybermoney hate-kegels that HN practices are, interpreted in the most generous possible way a really loud, really low-signal way for a bunch of people to express the sentiment that they think some tradeable instruments are over-valued, which professionals do by either not buying them, or going short if they're convicted. Less charitable interpretations cluster around old-fashioned sour grapes that a bunch of people lucked into 10^6x or 10^7x type returns, which, in fairness, is hard not to be annoyed by on a human flinch level.
There is another group of people actively trying to profit either financially or in-kind via page views on the very thing they are calling destructive profiteering, and in the least generous possible interpretation, Ms. White falls into that category with this site.
But life is fucking hard at the best of times, and speaking for myself I'm generally much happier and more sane when I keep a sense of humor about things. Her site made me laugh, and was therefore a bargain at the ten minutes I spent chuckling over it.
There is another group of people actively trying to profit either financially or in-kind via page views on the very thing they are calling destructive profiteering, and in the least generous possible interpretation, Ms. White falls into that category with this site.
But life is fucking hard at the best of times, and speaking for myself I'm generally much happier and more sane when I keep a sense of humor about things. Her site made me laugh, and was therefore a bargain at the ten minutes I spent chuckling over it.
Don't forget the irony that the decentralized web is now effectively owned by Godaddy, the horrible corrupt company that largely inspired web 3.0 in the first place.
Unsurprising that Molly does not understand how DNS (or ENS) works, and that eth.link is just a pointer. Admitting ignorance for the lulz is not the Web3 diss they think it is.
Molly White perfectly knows how DNS work, thanks for her.
Your "just a pointer" links already exists in a lot of places and you won't be able to update them all. In a few days who knows who will buy the domain and what will become of it, and where all these already existing links will point to.
Your "just a pointer" links already exists in a lot of places and you won't be able to update them all. In a few days who knows who will buy the domain and what will become of it, and where all these already existing links will point to.
this is exactly why a lot of people should have problems with link shorteners based around shady country-code top-levels like .ly and .to
I agree that people should have issues with link shorteners, but .ly and .to aren't shady country-code TLDs
.ly is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Libya
.to is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) of the island kingdom of Tonga.
Are you disagreeing with my use of "shady", or something else in particular?
.io is a shady ccTLD too, assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
.to is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) of the island kingdom of Tonga.
Are you disagreeing with my use of "shady", or something else in particular?
.io is a shady ccTLD too, assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
yeah I was disagreeing with your judgement of .ly and .to as shady. I've worked with people at registrars and the registry for these ccTLDs and they are nice people and I don't think they have done anything shady.
I can understand why .io may be considered "shady" because it was assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory but the native people of this region didn't receive anything from .io.
I can understand why .io may be considered "shady" because it was assigned to the British Indian Ocean Territory but the native people of this region didn't receive anything from .io.
no knock on the ccTLD registry itself but Libya's government is in a provisional state. who knows what its future will be and there are many other ccTLDs in a similar place.
I think "shady" is justified.
I had to go back and look and yes, when Bitly was founded in 2008, Libya was still ruled by Gaddafi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Libya
also followed the link and yes the government has seized one other shortening service which used .ly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitly#Alternative_domains
https://www.pcmag.com/archive/libya-seizes-url-shortener-vbl...
We can say it's different now or something but I wouldn't put money behind it.
I had to go back and look and yes, when Bitly was founded in 2008, Libya was still ruled by Gaddafi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_Libya
also followed the link and yes the government has seized one other shortening service which used .ly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitly#Alternative_domains
https://www.pcmag.com/archive/libya-seizes-url-shortener-vbl...
We can say it's different now or something but I wouldn't put money behind it.
I highly doubt that, since they just want to dance around an imaginary problem, and you aren't much better if you think that broken links = broken platform.
Imagine if they put the same amount of effort into ridiculing old growth logging, strip mining, tax evasion, wealth inequality... literally anything but trying to dunk on some nerds playing around with cryptography to try and create a new trustless financial system.
This is why the problem solvers benefit the most in the early days, and why my early investments in ETH are still worth 3100% more than when i started even after the latest corrections. It is easy to recognize issues, but putting effort into actually doing something about it is where new developments actually occur.
Imagine if they put the same amount of effort into ridiculing old growth logging, strip mining, tax evasion, wealth inequality... literally anything but trying to dunk on some nerds playing around with cryptography to try and create a new trustless financial system.
This is why the problem solvers benefit the most in the early days, and why my early investments in ETH are still worth 3100% more than when i started even after the latest corrections. It is easy to recognize issues, but putting effort into actually doing something about it is where new developments actually occur.
> some nerds playing around with cryptography to try and create a new trustless financial system
Okay, this is really not what's at play here. I would highly encourage you to read The Politics of Bitcoin by David Golumbia, and will not participate further in this discussion with someone who has personal investments at stakes and who can therefore not be neutral and is already using fallacious arguments (no one said "broken link = broken platform", you're the one making this up) and ad hominem accusations.
Okay, this is really not what's at play here. I would highly encourage you to read The Politics of Bitcoin by David Golumbia, and will not participate further in this discussion with someone who has personal investments at stakes and who can therefore not be neutral and is already using fallacious arguments (no one said "broken link = broken platform", you're the one making this up) and ad hominem accusations.
"you aren't much better if you think that broken links = broken platform"
Why? It's basically been like that since the days of Geocities. More broken links, more people go elsewhere to find what they are looking for, now you no longer have traffic because people know they can find the information in a more reliable fashion elsewhere, and now you fail because you don't have enough traffic and actual customers providing that traffic to keep business going.
Why? It's basically been like that since the days of Geocities. More broken links, more people go elsewhere to find what they are looking for, now you no longer have traffic because people know they can find the information in a more reliable fashion elsewhere, and now you fail because you don't have enough traffic and actual customers providing that traffic to keep business going.
Well she needs to be as dishonest and ignorant as possible to grift for their Patreon newsletter on their followers.
Even some of the prominent critics, like Stephen Diehl are now grifting by pushing their books, preaching the same thing on their Twitter every day about the absolute and complete desolation of the crypto industry; which just isn't going to happen. Perhaps this individual in question is enraged by all of it and especially by Cardano which killed his private blockchain startup and is on an impossible mission to destroy all of it. (Won't happen)
Like many critics of crypto in the past, they eventually give up as they realize later on that they had wasted their time.
Even some of the prominent critics, like Stephen Diehl are now grifting by pushing their books, preaching the same thing on their Twitter every day about the absolute and complete desolation of the crypto industry; which just isn't going to happen. Perhaps this individual in question is enraged by all of it and especially by Cardano which killed his private blockchain startup and is on an impossible mission to destroy all of it. (Won't happen)
Like many critics of crypto in the past, they eventually give up as they realize later on that they had wasted their time.
[deleted]
On Twitter, crypto maxis seem genuinely confused why a bunch of people (?) on Twitter (?) can’t get together and ask (?) GoDaddy to just extend the legal contract with the guy who’s now in legal trouble for violating sanctions against North Korea.
These people are beyond parody.
These people are beyond parody.
Isn't a whole guiding principle of crypto that code is law, rules are rules with no exceptions, and if you end up getting screwed over by the rules you opted into then it's your fault for not doing due diligence? The irony of immutable smart contract proponents begging humans to let them backdoor around a contract is palpable.
This is a Web2 relay to access Web3. If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot.
Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.
Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.
The equivalent to the relay in that case is just the browser. If control of the browser passes to someone else - say because the dev is in jail and the server or signing key is seized - you now have a silently-self-updating piece of software running code from an unknown third party. This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
The browser is client side code, that runs independently on millions of people's computers. It is not a centralized relay, and control over someone's browser can't be "passed to someone else". On Chrome, all updates have to be manually approved by the user - it is not "silently-self-updating".
A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve.
>>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding.
>>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there".
I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.
A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve.
>>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding.
>>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there".
I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.
This isn't a problem inherent to centralized "Web2" services, it's entirely possible to share custody of a domain name so no one person is a single point of failure if they drop dead or go to prison for getting too friendly with North Korea. You'd hope that a proponent of smart contracts would be familiar with planning for contingencies like that, since with those there's nobody to appeal to if something goes wrong later, but Griffith didn't think that far ahead.
[deleted]
Citation needed.
Um, use Brave, or any other decent web3 browswer. Put in any .eth URL, and it works fine. Eth.link was a crutch. A silly hack that makes it so you can take a .eth URL, add ".link" to it, and get onto .eth sites without having to use a modern browser.
Thankfully, not querying random blockchains is not what makes a modern browser.
Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
The original comment, for which a citation was requested, was:
"If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot."
The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
"If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot."
The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
No, the comment implied that browsers not allowing you to access websites on your favourite shitcoin without going through a normal TLD are not modern browsers.
So you focused on 2 words rather than the main content of the comment
When these two words have been very obviously selected and added in purpose to make people believe that web3 is the future (when all it is is a pitiful attempt at both hijacking a term and a pitiful attempt at getting people to pay for literally any interaction online) and that anyone not having access to it is in the past, yes.
Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
If you think Web3 is not the future, that's a perfectly reasonable position to have, and possibly correct, but it'd be more constructive to substantiate it instead of merely spewing vitriol and ad hominem.
Isn’t Brave just using their own relay?
Just because eth enthusiasts think it’s the same as web3.0 doesn’t make that the case
dashdot(1)
I mean normally anyone can pay to extend a domain registration so it’s not that crazy a question.
Normally people can pay to extend their domain registration.
No, usually you can renew a domain for anyone without authentication
Hah, reminds me of an old Married with Children episode where Al Bundy is going to the cable provider's customer service office to buy access to a Pay-Per-View event, and, after going through a lot of hassle, is asked for his ID, which he doesn't have on him.
I don't remember exactly what happened after, but my immediate reaction was, "lol what? Why do they care about whether this is really Al? At worst, it just means some random benefactor is paying their own money so Al gets to see the PPV."
(IIRC he was paying cash too so there wasn't even an issue of CC fraud.)
I don't remember exactly what happened after, but my immediate reaction was, "lol what? Why do they care about whether this is really Al? At worst, it just means some random benefactor is paying their own money so Al gets to see the PPV."
(IIRC he was paying cash too so there wasn't even an issue of CC fraud.)
One distinction being that the owner of a domain holds some liability for what happens on that domain, a risk that no one should be required to take on just because other people don’t want some service disrupted.
On top of this, being physically in prison isn't some sort of show stopper. The owner should be able to execute a limited power of attorney that gives someone (likely, their attorney) the power to stand in for them and renew the domain name. If Godaddy still wants to reject the POA, then they can find another registrar that will respect it and transfer the domain name out.
uh. what?
I'm not sure about Godaddy, but on Gandi you can definitely pay to extend someone else's domain name.
https://docs.gandi.net/en/domain_names/renew/how_to_renew.ht...
https://docs.gandi.net/en/domain_names/renew/how_to_renew.ht...
That's wild. I had had no idea.
Happened to microsoft: https://slashdot.org/story/99/12/25/114201/microsoft-hotmail...
Thats not the same thing. The domain lapsed and someone else bought it, which is exactly what is going to happen to eth.link according to this post.
From the horses mouth:
> I read through the discussion area for that story and found that the problem had been tracked down to an outstanding invoice for passport.com at Network Solutions, the domain name registrar.
> I own a number of domains myself, including doublewide.net, so I'm no stranger to the payment system at Network Solutions. I went to the payment page at https://payments.networksolutions.com and typed in "passport.com", after which I was greeted with a page showing the outstanding invoice for $35. One of the buttons near the bottom of the page was "Make payment", so I pressed it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002153020/http://www.double...
> I read through the discussion area for that story and found that the problem had been tracked down to an outstanding invoice for passport.com at Network Solutions, the domain name registrar.
> I own a number of domains myself, including doublewide.net, so I'm no stranger to the payment system at Network Solutions. I went to the payment page at https://payments.networksolutions.com and typed in "passport.com", after which I was greeted with a page showing the outstanding invoice for $35. One of the buttons near the bottom of the page was "Make payment", so I pressed it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002153020/http://www.double...
Too late to edit, thats a wild story, thanks for sharing it!
Ha, what a great story; thanks for sharing.
> On Tuesday, December 28 I heard from Microsoft. I was happy to hear that the payment did fix Passport, and of course they wanted to reimburse me, and thank me.
With companies so lawyer-ed up, I wonder if that would be the case today. I'd be very hesitant before hitting submit in that payment page.
> On Tuesday, December 28 I heard from Microsoft. I was happy to hear that the payment did fix Passport, and of course they wanted to reimburse me, and thank me.
With companies so lawyer-ed up, I wonder if that would be the case today. I'd be very hesitant before hitting submit in that payment page.
I mean, most banks don't require ID to make a deposit. It's not an unrealistic thought that someone should be able to top up some dude's account so that his stuff can autorenew. Though a company would need some sort of explicit policy for that more than likely.
> I mean, most banks don't require ID to make a deposit.
Due to money laundering regulations, that isn't really true anymore. Most banks straight up won't take cash deposits into someone else's account, identification or not. Other means (ACH, etc.) require KYC from the originating institution. I'm not sure about secure funds like a money order, but I'm guessing they'd be subject to some sort of verification as well.
Due to money laundering regulations, that isn't really true anymore. Most banks straight up won't take cash deposits into someone else's account, identification or not. Other means (ACH, etc.) require KYC from the originating institution. I'm not sure about secure funds like a money order, but I'm guessing they'd be subject to some sort of verification as well.
At my bank, if you fill out a deposit bag with the account number and put in cash, you can drop it in the deposit slot and it shows up in the account. There is no verification that you own the account, beyond knowledge of the account number.
Sure, if the original contract had a clause that said “anyone can come add money to this and if they do, go ahead and extend it under my name” then this would be entirely reasonable. It seems that clause doesn’t exist here or at least GoDaddy isn’t required to exercise it.
This hasn't been true in the UK for at least a few years now
I’ve done it for other people multiple times. Not sure about godaddy though.
It's not the case with GoDaddy. I just had a hosting client run into this a few weeks ago -- someone they know had registered their domain for them long ago, and they didn't have the GoDaddy login. I tried to help out when their domain expired and spoke to GoDaddy support. They do not provide any way to renew domain without logging into the account that owns the domain. They were fortunately able to get in touch with the person who originally registered it, so that person could renew it and work on transferring it to an account controlled by the true "domain owner".
I personally don't see a security issue with allowing anyone to renew any domain. It's not like you can change WHOIS information or the authoritative name servers -- you're just paying to continue with the existing ownership/configuration.
I personally don't see a security issue with allowing anyone to renew any domain. It's not like you can change WHOIS information or the authoritative name servers -- you're just paying to continue with the existing ownership/configuration.
It's not totally crazy to think that GoDaddy could unilaterally extend the contract so that a widely used relay service could stay operational.
A decentralized service, ~propped up~ exposed by a weak single point of failure, with no organization, and a bus-factor of one is doomed to fail. If it wasn't GoDaddy, it would be something else. Just let it die.
It is, because that domain is in demand and it would be unfair to other people who want a chance to get it.
I'd argue nothing about the arbitrarily priced, first come first serve, domain name model is fair at all in the first place.
Why would anyone want to prolong the death of web 3?
Seems inhumane.
Seems inhumane.
It's hard for it to die when countries like Venezuela tried to create their own crypto to get around US sanctions on the Venezuelan dollar. And when that failed, Venezuelans switched to Bitcoin because the Bolívar currency was inflating too fast.
Next on the crypto train is Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka government is warning against using crypto, but we'll see if the citizens choose it over their own Rupees.
Next on the crypto train is Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka government is warning against using crypto, but we'll see if the citizens choose it over their own Rupees.
I just did a quick calculation. If the Sri Lankans had traded their Rupees for Bitcoin at the peak, they'd be down about 4% less. However, if they had bought USD instead, they'd up 73%!
Bitcoin seems like a poor inflation hedge to me.
However, it does seem to be working out well for them. Joke is on me, I guess.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/8/15/sri-lankans-make...
Bitcoin seems like a poor inflation hedge to me.
However, it does seem to be working out well for them. Joke is on me, I guess.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/8/15/sri-lankans-make...
But seeing web 3 flop like a fish out of the water is hilarious too, so there's arguments on both sides.
Forecast shows a low possibility of hell freezing over this week, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Uh. It doesn't work like that.
When it comes to ICANN, rules are rules.
When it comes to ICANN, rules are rules.
The ICANN Expired Domain Deletion Policy allows a registrar to renew a registration without any action from the registrant in "extenuating circumstances." If they wanted to, they could maybe do it under this exception, but there's no real reason why GoDaddy would stick their neck out here.
an extenuating circumstance isn't what you think it means here.
Yeah let’s just throw all ICANN rules.
Yes it is.
Huge number of people dependent on service, owner incapacitated, GoDaddy able to prevent disruption to service by simply freezing current settings. Not seeing the "out of this world crazy".
The only conceivable reason GoDaddy would entertain the idea is that the gross incompetence and negligence of a single individual has created such an immense liability for millions of users. And single individuals creating immense liabilities for millions of users seems to be par for the course for web3. Really nothing new.
So you agree, not totally crazy.
If that's your conclusion, I'm not surprised you're so invested in these ideas.
You just provided a plausible rationale for Twitter to extend the contract. But I apologize for interrupting your stream of snarky comments with a good faith interpretation
And yes, I am invested in the idea of not being dependent on a large corporation to authenticate my identity online, or a large bank to access my money. No surprise many people reject these ideas, given how many people's livelihoods now depend on institutions that are shaped around the existence of centralized points of control.
Just remember, the only way crypto/Web3 fails, is if a lot more people are put in prison, like the way the Netherlands put Alexey Pertsev in prison for publishing open source Tornado Cash code. Is that the world you want to live in?
And yes, I am invested in the idea of not being dependent on a large corporation to authenticate my identity online, or a large bank to access my money. No surprise many people reject these ideas, given how many people's livelihoods now depend on institutions that are shaped around the existence of centralized points of control.
Just remember, the only way crypto/Web3 fails, is if a lot more people are put in prison, like the way the Netherlands put Alexey Pertsev in prison for publishing open source Tornado Cash code. Is that the world you want to live in?
> livelihoods depend on... centralized points of control
This control they have has nothing to do with centralization or decentralization. They get it through the data-economy we live in - monopolistic companies syphoning petabytes of information about us to build impenetrable moats of data that smaller businesses can't compete with. Currency isn't even on their radar. It's irrelevant. When that cash or coin needs to be transferred into real tangible value, they'll be taking their share, regardless if the system that transaction is running on is an Pentium 3 AMEX COBOL server, or via the mining rig that came out last week consuming the energy from burning a small rainforest.
This control they have has nothing to do with centralization or decentralization. They get it through the data-economy we live in - monopolistic companies syphoning petabytes of information about us to build impenetrable moats of data that smaller businesses can't compete with. Currency isn't even on their radar. It's irrelevant. When that cash or coin needs to be transferred into real tangible value, they'll be taking their share, regardless if the system that transaction is running on is an Pentium 3 AMEX COBOL server, or via the mining rig that came out last week consuming the energy from burning a small rainforest.
>>They get it through the data-economy we live in - monopolistic companies syphoning petabytes of information about us to build impenetrable moats of data that smaller businesses can't compete with.
This has everything to do with centralization.. the exclusive access these companies have to vast troves of private data is a consequence of billions of people relying on a handful of companies to provide internet services to them.
This has everything to do with centralization.. the exclusive access these companies have to vast troves of private data is a consequence of billions of people relying on a handful of companies to provide internet services to them.
It depends what companies we're talking about. Most of these companies are not internet services, they're so big that they're logistics companies - manufacturing, shipping, receiving, legal, human resources, etc etc etc. The internet is the conduit and plays a role in their marketing and sales, but there is absolutely no economic incentive for companies to share the data or consumers to move to an inferior product. This stickiness means consumers will purchase from those companies because of influences imposed by their data-moat (better price and product)
If you say that decentralization is the solution, I'd retort "what are you even planning on decentralizing?", because most of their logistics isn't on "the internet", it's on the dark web
If you say that decentralization is the solution, I'd retort "what are you even planning on decentralizing?", because most of their logistics isn't on "the internet", it's on the dark web
> owner incapacitated
Owner deliberately created a bus factor issue and decided to violate sanctions against North Korea.
Owner deliberately created a bus factor issue and decided to violate sanctions against North Korea.
Why does this domain get special treatment. If Google forget to register google.com should their registrar renew it out of the good of their hearts?
The owner isn’t incapacitated. He has a lawyer who can decide what happens with the domain!
These sorts of disputes happen all the time. They don’t generally resolve with “contractor signs with counterparty’s name on new contracts in perpetuity.”
These sorts of disputes happen all the time. They don’t generally resolve with “contractor signs with counterparty’s name on new contracts in perpetuity.”
The owner went to jail. You think GoDaddy is going to give people a domain in-perpetuity for free? Are you unfamiliar with their business model or something?
I don't see anyone asking for that -- just for the ability for someone other than the domain owner to pay the annual renewal fee.
They can, they just have to let it lapse first. Same as it's always been with GoDaddy, why should they make an exception here?
The beauty of decentralization means that ENS is not at the mercy of GoDaddy or eth.link. You can use an alternative open-source proxy like eth.limo[1], or use Infura, Alchemy, or query the ENS endpoint through a local blockchain node.
Frustratingly, the critics and mainstream reporting[2] has misrepresented this as some failure of decentralization, ENS, or Web3. Or, they just don't know how the system works.
[1] https://eth.limo/
[2] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=ethlink-service-about-to-go...
Frustratingly, the critics and mainstream reporting[2] has misrepresented this as some failure of decentralization, ENS, or Web3. Or, they just don't know how the system works.
[1] https://eth.limo/
[2] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=ethlink-service-about-to-go...
Just like you can use my nameserver instead of cloudflare or google. The question is, do you trust me?
I think the problem people are calling out is that the system’s web2 bridge heavily depends on a centralized trust point. It’s not damning but you have to admit it’s somewhat comical.
I think the problem people are calling out is that the system’s web2 bridge heavily depends on a centralized trust point. It’s not damning but you have to admit it’s somewhat comical.
It might be funny to outsiders, but it's a well discussed topic in the web 3 community so it's no surprise to them -- it is something that they are constantly warning about and trying to find ways around.
The funny part to me is that they used godaddy as their domain registry... like were they not around for all the godaddy bullshit over the past two decades?
The funny part to me is that they used godaddy as their domain registry... like were they not around for all the godaddy bullshit over the past two decades?
Yes I understand people are not oblivious. It is funny how easily people trust but how little they verify.
As far as I know, eth.link had never any official status (I could be wrong). Users have been adviced to use alternative web fronts for some time now. What eth.link did or did not do was Virgil's side project.
>The funny part to me is that they used godaddy as their domain registry... like were they not around for all the godaddy bullshit over the past two decades?
This problem was caused by the domain owner being in prison for helping North Korea evade sanctions. Perhaps some of these people do not have the greatest of judgement?
This problem was caused by the domain owner being in prison for helping North Korea evade sanctions. Perhaps some of these people do not have the greatest of judgement?
> system’s web2 bridge heavily depends on a centralized trust point
Yes, this is how it works. If you use DNS to access blockchain data you are routing through a centralized point that might fail like in the OP.
But the blockchain and ENS is unaffected, still as decentralized as ever, and anybody can query it’s data or build new providers on top of it. That’s how eth.limo, Infura, and others are able to provide infrastructure even when eth.link is down.
Yes, this is how it works. If you use DNS to access blockchain data you are routing through a centralized point that might fail like in the OP.
But the blockchain and ENS is unaffected, still as decentralized as ever, and anybody can query it’s data or build new providers on top of it. That’s how eth.limo, Infura, and others are able to provide infrastructure even when eth.link is down.
Calling web3isgoinggreat "mainstream reporting" is… dubious. Also, being able to depend (for actual usage by real people, which is the case here otherwise this domain expiration wouldn't be a story worth mentioning: it wouldn't be a story at all) on another external third-party whom you have no control over is not what I would call "the beauty of decentralization"; and being able to switch provider does not prevent all the broken (and soon maybe worse than broken!) links that already exists everywhere.
“Mainstream” by crypto and Twitter-mob standards. Actual mainstream reporters are not talking about ENS or eth.link.
> depend on another external third-party whom you have no control over
This is how current DNS works.
In ENS, you can run your own node, or choose your blockchain node provider. Any platform building their infrastructure by permalinking to and depending on eth.link or another web2 service is setting themselves up for failure, and antithetical to the goals of web3. Thankfully most web3 users and services are not dependent on eth.link and recognize it is a centralized service.
> depend on another external third-party whom you have no control over
This is how current DNS works.
In ENS, you can run your own node, or choose your blockchain node provider. Any platform building their infrastructure by permalinking to and depending on eth.link or another web2 service is setting themselves up for failure, and antithetical to the goals of web3. Thankfully most web3 users and services are not dependent on eth.link and recognize it is a centralized service.
> This is how current DNS works
I know that, nobody pretend it's otherwise.
> Thankfully most web3 users and services are not dependent on eth.link and recognize it is a centralized service.
If that were the case we wouldn't have a story here.
I know that, nobody pretend it's otherwise.
> Thankfully most web3 users and services are not dependent on eth.link and recognize it is a centralized service.
If that were the case we wouldn't have a story here.
There is no story here, except “an unreliable website that some people use as a proxy to the blockchain is finally down, so ENS suggests using another service.” Critics and Twitter mobs are trying to spin this into some kind of failure of ENS or Web3.
There is no story, yet here we are on one forum discussing this story in a 130 comments long thread while on the same forum the same story reported somewhere else is being discussed on that same forum with 50+ comments already, and this is far from being the only forum discussing the story that doesn't exist.
It's not a story for Eth and web3 communities because it isn't actually an issue. It's mostly a story for people who don't understand web3 and think it's an issue. In fact, really, it's a good thing for people to see how unreliable and rent-seeking web2 can be
> how unreliable and rent-seeking web2 can be
The whole point of "web3" stuff is systematically to make everything a tradable and scarce merchandise, so it seems a bit twisted to oppose it to what you call web2 based on this "rent-seeking" property. Concerning reliability, I think that we have more than enough cases of things going wrong to be able to strongly affirm that it cannot be considered a fair selling point for "web3" stuff.
The whole point of "web3" stuff is systematically to make everything a tradable and scarce merchandise, so it seems a bit twisted to oppose it to what you call web2 based on this "rent-seeking" property. Concerning reliability, I think that we have more than enough cases of things going wrong to be able to strongly affirm that it cannot be considered a fair selling point for "web3" stuff.
eth.limo isn't entirely reliable sadly, considering they decided to block tornado cash visitors.
This is inevitable for any entity providing blockchain services, especially if they are US based, they will be forced to comply with the government's draconian sanctions. Users who want to circumvent US sanctions will be forced to run their own local blockchain node.
So what happens when there are hundreds++ of individuals all interested in a single domain name that will become available at a very well-defined time like this? Do people just hammer the ICANN/registrar servers in hope of being the lucky one, or is it more elegant than that?
AFAIK, there are even companies that own hundreds of registrars to just do that [1]. Just scroll through [2].
[1]: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/10/09/wow-dropcatch-adds-300...
[2]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids...
[1]: https://domainnamewire.com/2015/10/09/wow-dropcatch-adds-300...
[2]: https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids...
Yep, it's called "domain drop", it's a pretty lucrative industry to be in. GoDaddy especially knows this and will auction off domains before selling them, where as third parties can try and register the domain every 0.005 seconds. :-)
In addition to some replies here, some outfits will even lease their office buildings as close as networkly-posible to the registrars so that they can shave those milliseconds in trying to snipe the domain.
This happens everyday. Nothing new. Hundreds of high value domains expire every week. Some can be worth six figures or more.
Everyone competes to “catch it” but usually, the registrar gets it and auctions it off.
Everyone competes to “catch it” but usually, the registrar gets it and auctions it off.
No, there is an auction period before domain being available to public(atleast that was the case with another registrar).
It's interesting; half the replies here say there will be a bot rush. The other half say GoDaddy will auction it off. Which is it?
GoDaddy Auctions is what will happen like all their expired domains
So they have a financial incentive here to allow the domain to expire.
[deleted]
Yes.
> So what happens when there are hundreds++ of individuals all interested in a single domain name that will become available at a very well-defined time like this?
One of them receives it and the others do not.
First come first serve.
One of them receives it and the others do not.
First come first serve.
It was expired and registered again?
`whois eth.link | grep -iE 'Updated|Expiry|Creation'`
Updated Date: 2022-08-25T23:18:22.578Z
Creation Date: 2017-07-26T19:31:41.508Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2023-07-26T19:31:41.508Z
`whois eth.link | grep -iE 'Updated|Expiry|Creation'`
Updated Date: 2022-08-25T23:18:22.578Z
Creation Date: 2017-07-26T19:31:41.508Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2023-07-26T19:31:41.508Z
That's what I've been wondering about.
Godaddy claims that the domain expired, but the WHOIS record says otherwise. I suppose that someone could have made a payment that got the domain date extended, but then the payment failed. But wouldn't the record only be updated after the payment was confirmed?
And to that end, I've never heard of a registrar ignoring an extension and force-expiring a domain name. The whole thing is extremely confusing.
Godaddy claims that the domain expired, but the WHOIS record says otherwise. I suppose that someone could have made a payment that got the domain date extended, but then the payment failed. But wouldn't the record only be updated after the payment was confirmed?
And to that end, I've never heard of a registrar ignoring an extension and force-expiring a domain name. The whole thing is extremely confusing.
> Godaddy claims that the domain expired, but the WHOIS record says otherwise.
The Godaddy statement is dated August 25th, and so is the WHOIS record. The situation may have changed after the statement was made.
> I suppose that someone could have made a payment that got the domain date extended, but then the payment failed. But wouldn't the record only be updated after the payment was confirmed?
Payments sometimes bounce after they were approved (chargebacks, weird check stuff, etc), so there is a procedure to unrenew names.
The Godaddy statement is dated August 25th, and so is the WHOIS record. The situation may have changed after the statement was made.
> I suppose that someone could have made a payment that got the domain date extended, but then the payment failed. But wouldn't the record only be updated after the payment was confirmed?
Payments sometimes bounce after they were approved (chargebacks, weird check stuff, etc), so there is a procedure to unrenew names.
Maybe GoDaddy squatting the domain themselves?
I wonder if godaddy registered it themselves? not sure if possible / legal
It's not really done anymore, but there were some scandals in the first decade of the 2000's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting
What should we learn from this?
Don’t make yourself a single point of failure. Always have at least two people who have admin access on things. Have emails go to a distribution list of at least 2, not to a single individual.
The only news here is not actually news. It’s the same way that organizations have been shooting themselves in the foot for decades.
We have learned nothing.
Don’t make yourself a single point of failure. Always have at least two people who have admin access on things. Have emails go to a distribution list of at least 2, not to a single individual.
The only news here is not actually news. It’s the same way that organizations have been shooting themselves in the foot for decades.
We have learned nothing.
Or use brave browser to access web3 services directly instead of going through a web2 relay
And this is how you print money. I'll be curious to see how much it goes for.
https://www.whatsmydns.net/domain-expiration?q=eth.link
This website does not agree on the expiration date
This website does not agree on the expiration date
WHOIS query returns the expiry as "Registry Expiry Date: 2023-07-26T19:31:41.508Z".
AFAIK, this is the authoritative answer.
AFAIK, this is the authoritative answer.
That's true, up to a point. That's what the .link registry says.
It also says Domain Status: autoRenewPeriod
.link is a modern gTLD, so its policies are set by ICANN†. ICANN registry policy says the domain automatically enters "autoRenewPeriod" status, it renews for a period (typically one year). But for a few weeks in this status the registrar (GoDaddy in this case) can delete the entry, signifying they don't want to actually renew it, and they aren't billed for renewal. So this lets them offer a "grace period" where eth.link doesn't work but when the subscriber notices hey my DNS entry doesn't work, they're told they can renew (possibly with an extra fee for late payment). GoDaddy also, as I understand it, uses the last few days of the ICANN policy window to run auctions, since you didn't renew but they have say on whether the name is deleted, the auction winner gets to just pay $$$ to have your name.
† Some older gTLS have their own policies, and the ccTLDs since they are operated by or on behalf of sovereign entities, well, sovereign entities have armies and stuff, they're not inclined to listen to a bureaucrat about what they can or cannot do, so they set their own policies, making your own rules is sort of the point of being a sovereign entity.
It also says Domain Status: autoRenewPeriod
.link is a modern gTLD, so its policies are set by ICANN†. ICANN registry policy says the domain automatically enters "autoRenewPeriod" status, it renews for a period (typically one year). But for a few weeks in this status the registrar (GoDaddy in this case) can delete the entry, signifying they don't want to actually renew it, and they aren't billed for renewal. So this lets them offer a "grace period" where eth.link doesn't work but when the subscriber notices hey my DNS entry doesn't work, they're told they can renew (possibly with an extra fee for late payment). GoDaddy also, as I understand it, uses the last few days of the ICANN policy window to run auctions, since you didn't renew but they have say on whether the name is deleted, the auction winner gets to just pay $$$ to have your name.
† Some older gTLS have their own policies, and the ccTLDs since they are operated by or on behalf of sovereign entities, well, sovereign entities have armies and stuff, they're not inclined to listen to a bureaucrat about what they can or cannot do, so they set their own policies, making your own rules is sort of the point of being a sovereign entity.
> eth.link was last updated on:
> Thursday 25th of August 2022
The linked post is from the same day.
> Thursday 25th of August 2022
The linked post is from the same day.
What's the significance of eth.link?
There's a system called ENS which allows domain names to be registered on the Ethereum blockchain and traded around like NFTs. However, none of the mainstream DNS resolvers support ENS so users either have to (a) switch to a niche DNS provider which does support it or (b) use a site running on conventional DNS like eth.link to proxy through.
Unsurprisingly the latter option which doesn't require messing around with network settings is quite popular, and so their decentralized domain system ended up centralizing around a conventional domain name owned by a guy who is unable to pay the bill because he's currently in prison for helping North Korea evade sanctions. Now the domain is about to expire and acquiring it is a crypto phishers dream since there are so many organic links to it in the wild.
Unsurprisingly the latter option which doesn't require messing around with network settings is quite popular, and so their decentralized domain system ended up centralizing around a conventional domain name owned by a guy who is unable to pay the bill because he's currently in prison for helping North Korea evade sanctions. Now the domain is about to expire and acquiring it is a crypto phishers dream since there are so many organic links to it in the wild.
Are you familiar with Tor and .onion links? A decade or so ago, someone set up onion.ws so you could add .ws to any onion link and visit onion sites without running Tor. Eth.link is the same concept, but for .eth domains.
Web3 capable browsers like Brave, etc, can access .eth domains directly. This site was for those that are still a bit behind on the web3 thing.
Web3 capable browsers like Brave, etc, can access .eth domains directly. This site was for those that are still a bit behind on the web3 thing.
The guy who owns it is in prison and it's used to access IPFS sites through their ENS (Ethereum Name Service) domains. i.e name.eth.link
Crypto bros say it's worth tolerating 100x cost (technical cost, energy wasted, etc) and 100x more complexity (as one example, we are 7 years in and ETH is about to be 'reborn' the right way, with the transition to proof of stake) in exchange for what?
For a small but key piece of the 'decentralized' Web3 infrastructure to be controlled by a random stranger due to random events?
Welcome to the future, folks!
For a small but key piece of the 'decentralized' Web3 infrastructure to be controlled by a random stranger due to random events?
Welcome to the future, folks!
https://medium.com/the-ethereum-name-service/ens-partners-wi...
For all the technical effort put into this, one would have hoped some thought would be given to ensure appropriate custody of the eth.link DNS registration.
For all the technical effort put into this, one would have hoped some thought would be given to ensure appropriate custody of the eth.link DNS registration.
I don't understand the purpose of letting actively used domains expire. It's a flaw in the web that is a constant threat to things breaking. This could easily happen to tens of thousands of business or more.
If you want to have a different policy, you can set up a domain with a different policy. If you have a few million dollars you can do this for a TLD, maybe .charcircuit.
But, you will need to figure out where your million dollars a year comes from. Maybe you could require a renewal fee... oh, right.
And you'll need some mechanism to clear out useless garbage. For today's domains the renewal fee does that, but you don't want that fee, so... maybe you'll pay interns to look at each domain, weigh up whether it seems "active" enough and if not delete it ?
How does an intern guess whether some.example gets a lot of email? Sends a lot of email but with its return address listed? Is mentioned in Java package names for important software? Has a fun text adventure hidden in its DNS answers?
Oh they can't do all those things (and dozens of others I didn't think of) ? Then your service isn't fit for purpose or you must commit to keeping absolutely everything, forever, no matter what, which has unlimited cost.
But, you will need to figure out where your million dollars a year comes from. Maybe you could require a renewal fee... oh, right.
And you'll need some mechanism to clear out useless garbage. For today's domains the renewal fee does that, but you don't want that fee, so... maybe you'll pay interns to look at each domain, weigh up whether it seems "active" enough and if not delete it ?
How does an intern guess whether some.example gets a lot of email? Sends a lot of email but with its return address listed? Is mentioned in Java package names for important software? Has a fun text adventure hidden in its DNS answers?
Oh they can't do all those things (and dozens of others I didn't think of) ? Then your service isn't fit for purpose or you must commit to keeping absolutely everything, forever, no matter what, which has unlimited cost.
You lookup the IP for the domain and port scan it to see if any services are running. You provide a form where anyone can input a subdomain + domain that will push back the expiration date by a year.
You can also have the .com DNS servers see how often the domain is resolved. If it's not resolved for a year it should expire.
You can also have the .com DNS servers see how often the domain is resolved. If it's not resolved for a year it should expire.
Same reason a metered parking spot expires even when a car is in it
Or why you pay to have a telephone number
Or why you pay to have a telephone number
This can be solved by allowing anyone to pay to push the expiration date back.
Of course a big reason they expire is so the registrars can get money from you registering them, they aren't providing much service. A much more sensible system is they wouldn't expire. The domain registration industrial complex, with the zillions of dodgy groups that squat on domains is of course not providing much value to the world.
The ENS domain system is similar, but they added a few rules to benefit the domain holder:
1) When the domain expires, it still remains active and still linked to the previous owner. People can still use it as normal.
2) When it expires, the price is set to a very high price for a few weeks. Anyone can buy it at the higher price. If no one buys it, it still remains active and linked to the previous owner.
3) If the previous owner wants to buy it back after it has expired, they just need to pay their original price (not the high price), provided that someone else hasn't already bought it.
4) At the end of the initial few weeks, the price drops a little and remains at this price for a few more weeks.
5) The price eventually drops to the regular price after many weeks.
6) At any time anyone can pay to extend the registration for another year.
1) When the domain expires, it still remains active and still linked to the previous owner. People can still use it as normal.
2) When it expires, the price is set to a very high price for a few weeks. Anyone can buy it at the higher price. If no one buys it, it still remains active and linked to the previous owner.
3) If the previous owner wants to buy it back after it has expired, they just need to pay their original price (not the high price), provided that someone else hasn't already bought it.
4) At the end of the initial few weeks, the price drops a little and remains at this price for a few more weeks.
5) The price eventually drops to the regular price after many weeks.
6) At any time anyone can pay to extend the registration for another year.
This is why Gandi.net policy to let anyone renew domain name is amazing.
Eth.link is just a middleman for people who want to use web2 tech to connect to web3. If you use a browser like Brave, you can skip that step and just connect directly to web3
I hate godaddy with Passion, its not because I used their services, its because every good domain name is owned by godaddy.
I now use aws to register my domains. I started with GoDaddy. I remember searching for some names (on GoDaddy) and found something that was reported as available. I went to register it and GoDaddy tells me that it is no longer available, but that they have some service that I can pay for where they will help me to negotiate/handle the purchase from the owner. I called the customer service to ask about this. I found out that it was GoDaddy itself that had purchased it right up from under me. That was the last time I ever dealt with GoDaddy.
This same thing happened to me. I was trying to register an obscure domain name (never before registered), left it for several hours, then came back to find it snapped up. The chances this was done without inside information on my lookups are surely slim. And with all the personal stories flying round like yours, I'm also inclined to believe a GoDaddy employee (or GoDaddy themselves!) sniped it.
So you hate godaddy because a lot of entities decided to register their domain through them?
I'm not sure I follow. Is there some previous godaddy history that I'm missing here and would explain such a statement?
I'm not sure I follow. Is there some previous godaddy history that I'm missing here and would explain such a statement?
No, I meant that any good domain is bought by godaddy so they can park it and sell it for exorbitant prices.
They are not actually used, just parked.
They are not actually used, just parked.
So, I just randomly made up some 2LDs, and asked whois about them. Sure enough none of them exist.
fakecheese.info fastdoris.net old-banjo.org spacefare.rs
These weren't the results of me trying dozens of things, just writing whatever came into my head and none of them exist. Your definition of "any good domain" just means "Names which are obviously valuable" and then you're surprised that, duh, those names are obviously valuable so a speculator owns them.
fakecheese.info fastdoris.net old-banjo.org spacefare.rs
These weren't the results of me trying dozens of things, just writing whatever came into my head and none of them exist. Your definition of "any good domain" just means "Names which are obviously valuable" and then you're surprised that, duh, those names are obviously valuable so a speculator owns them.
A few days ago I registered a 5 letter actually pronounceable .COM. You just have to be creative.
Ok, I understand. Yeah, that's scummy.
https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=ethlink-service-about-to-go... ("eth.link service about to go offline because domain owner is in prison")