Registration Page

[indolering]

We need a page for registrars, similar to the exchange page.

We should also list how to do it yourself.

Perhaps give dotbit.me a free bronze-level membership for having stuck around for so long?

[JeremyRand]

I'm against promoting the usage of registrars. It's fine to mention that they exist, but trusting a 3rd party with your private keys is something that is sufficiently dangerous that users must be informed that they're risking the permanent theft/hijacking of their domain name by the registrar, a government, or an intruder.

As an aside, if a registrar is .bit-specific (i.e. not usable for id/ names) then that belongs on bit.namecoin.info, not www.namecoin.info.

[indolering]

How are the risks involved any different than that of dealing with an exchange?

I'm not against people registering their own domain, as I point out in the ticket. However, it's simply not in the cards for the VAST majority of the population. Hell, we don't even have automated renewals setup yet.

If someone does not have the technical skills to manage such a site, there is a much greater danger in their loosing their private keys to poor administrative capabilities than the government.

I would also like to point out that registrars are not bound to the ICANN uniform dispute resolution policy or ICE, which apparently just orders Verisign to yank people's domains. That would make a Namecoin registrar, in theory, more resilient than every other registrar.

[JeremyRand]

It's different from an exchange because currency is fungible (and therefore replaceable); names are not fungible. When your name is stolen, (1) you can't ever get it back, and (2) all of your customers could have their data stolen too.

To my knowledge most .bit registrars are run anonymously with no accountability measures in case they do something illegal. Suing a .bit registrar is much harder than suing a standard registrar.

As I said, this isn't just about the government, it's also about the registrar themselves, or an intruder. Do you think .bit registrars have security practices as good as standard registrars?

Namecoin is in beta. In all honesty, I think that if you're not willing to take responsibility for periodic renewals and backing up your keys, you shouldn't be using Namecoin at the moment. We should work on mitigating those issues with code, not with trusted third parties.

Accepting money from registrars also exposes us to a conflict of interest, because we're supposed to be developing tools to make them less relevant.

[indolering]

To my knowledge most .bit registrars are run anonymously with no accountability measures in case they do something illegal. Suing a .bit registrar is much harder than suing a standard registrar.

I only know of two, DomainCoin and dotbit.me. I believe DomainCoin is actually part of a larger company, albeit a small one.

Namecoin is in beta. In all honesty, I think that if you're not willing to take responsibility for periodic renewals and backing up your keys, you shouldn't be using Namecoin at the moment.

I am most swayed by this argument, however,

We should work on mitigating those issues with code, not with trusted third parties... Accepting money from registrars also exposes us to a conflict of interest, because we're supposed to be developing tools to make them less relevant.

This seems to be the crux of your objections. However, registrars don't have to be a trusted third party. EasyDNS is very interested in setting up a trust-less registrar and multi-signature transactions can accommodate that. If EasyDNS had the money, I have no doubt that they would hire a developer to implement that functionality.

Listen, I have my own qualms with registrars (mainly domain name squatting) but if we promote ones which reflect our core values, we can convert them from enemies into assets. I see the real investments for Namecoin coming from existing players in this market investing in trust-less infrastructure.

Namecoin is very difficult for most people to setup and my exact advice for many months was to wait. The current registrars may be far from perfect, but we need to support them if want them to invest into their business and more mature players.

I think our best chance at controlling negative activity is to actively engagement with them while also creating very aggressive community guidelines for registrars.

Accepting money from registrars also exposes us to a conflict of interest, because we're supposed to be developing tools to make them less relevant.

The same could be said for exchanges; I am very keen on being able to exchange Namecoin for USD and EU without centralized players. Anonymous transfers is another feature that would, on its face, go against the interest of exchanges as well. You would have a much harder time convincing me to take a patch that anonymizes Namecoin for fear of regulation and rejection from the exchanges than patches for multi-signature transactions, auctions, or automated renewals.

[JeremyRand]

I'm not at all convinced that trust-free registrars can be enabled via multisig. Ryan, Luke, and I discussed this issue and we believe that the only way to delegate renewal capabilities to a third party is by adding a new opcode (which would require a softfork). I 100% support implementing this, and it would be great to have some registrars adopt this once it's implemented.

But anyway, I'm fine with trying to engage registrars (and exchanges), as long as it doesn't compromise users. Meeting this condition could be as simple as putting a well-worded warning at the top of a page that lists registrars.

(For the record I would totally support decentralized exchanges, even if that makes our current sponsors less relevant. We're ultimately working for the end users here.)

[indolering]

But anyway, I'm fine with trying to engage registrars (and exchanges), as long as it doesn't compromise users. Meeting this condition could be as simple as putting a well-worded warning at the top of a page that lists registrars.

Yeah, I thought that was entailed by, "We should also list how to do it yourself."

(For the record I would totally support decentralized exchanges, even if that makes our current sponsors less relevant. We're ultimately working for the end users here.)

Me too!

[Tagide]

Hi,

I run the .bit registrar dotbit.me, here's my point of view:

Sites like dotbit.me lowers the entry barriers for new users to start using namecoin and the .bit name space. For most, downloading and running software with gigs of data for registering one or two domain names is a huge inconvenience. Even more problematic is getting namecoins to pay for domains and keeping the registration active by issuing an update every 36000 blocks.

Registrars like dotbit.me intruduces a single point of faliure and a risk that you lose your domains when the site goes down, is hacked or the management turns out to be crooks. It's the same situation as for bitcoin exchanges and we've all seen what can happen.

For the casual user however, I would like to argue that using a registrar can be safer than running the software. Accidentally losing the private key or forgetting to update the domains is just too easy at this stage.

In essence, I think namecoin needs to be more user friendly to play an important role in the future. With that goal I have created a simple way to register .bit names that does not require namecoins, a way to list and visit all active .bit sites and a plugin for Chrome that lets you surf .bit without any downloads or change of settings. Growing the community that work on or use namecoin should be a high priority and I believe sites like dotbit.me plays an important part there.

Regards, Tagide https://dotbit.me

[indolering]

@Tagide Well, Speech.is is launching soon (no, really!) and it would be nice if you or the DomainCoin folks could contribute a registration info page.

I would also like your input on the guidelines page. At some point, we need you to take the initiative here : )

[indolering]

Oh, and thanks for responding : )

[indolering]

@Tagide and DomainCoin, could y'all post some "about us" pages on your websites? Jeremy has a point about you being faceless orgs somewhere on the internet....

[Tagide]

I'm not sure if the guidelines page is needed, let the market determine which registrars are successful and which fail. I am also worried about the detailed "rules", many of my users have requested an auction feature (see the dotbit.me forum) and it's something I have been considering to implement.

Regarding an "About us" page, I am as protective of my privacy as most of you and have no interest in posting any personal information online as long as the site is ran as a hobby without generating any income to speak of ( barely pays hosting costs). I realize some might choose not to use my services because of that but it's a price I'm willing to pay. I hope to keep building the long term reputation of dotbit.me and let that speak for the site. If/when dotbit.me takes off and I register a company I will definitely create a detailed "About us" page.

[indolering]

@Tagide let's keep discussion regarding the guidelines to that page. We need to setup some sort of system for processing debate, the wiki isn't ideal but unless you or someone else wants to implement the NEP workflow in Github I won't get around to it for a few weeks.

I think an anonymous registrar could be a good thing (as it prevents governmental interference) but you should understand that you will be held legally liable for any of your actions. I doubt you have anonymized your services to the point that someone couldn't find you if they really cared to.

Anyway, that's all in the details. @JeremyRand, I'm taking,

But anyway, I'm fine with trying to engage registrars (and exchanges), as long as it doesn't compromise users. Meeting this condition could be as simple as putting a well-worded warning at the top of a page that lists registrars.

to mean that you are okay with a registrar page. Unless there are additional NAK's regarding a registrar page, please limit discussion on this thread to technical aspects of creating this page.

[ryancdotorg]

If we list registrars, we should do so with a very blunt warning about the current security issues with using a registrar and requiring them to abide by guidelines to be listed. I don't see anything about contingency plans listed in those guidelines. I'd like that added - both a 'shutdown' plan and a 'what if the owner/operator gets hit by a bus' plan. We could also list whether they've had an audit done to make sure their site is secure.

As @JeremyRand there has been some brainstorming about enabling trust-free registrars by introducing a new opcode which would be a soft-fork change. I don't think it will be a controversial change, and it doesn't look like it will be too difficult to implement. Do we have a place for NEPs yet?

[sdalemans]

Hello Everyone,

Let me first state that I'm the owner of DomainCoin.net.

I think a registrars page is a great addition to the *.namecoin.info website. The most important part is to inform people about the pros, cons and dangers of using a registrar. Listing some proven registrars will help people to choose one in case they want to register their domain that way. This will prevent them from getting scammed by some site they found using Google or by other means.

Fact is; not everyone knows how to use the official client or has other reasons not to use it. For those people, using a registrar can be a good alternative to at least claim their name. The other option is: they will not register their name, forget about Namecoin and maybe come to the conclusion their name was taken in the meanwhile (when they try again after some time with the official client). I believe registrars are contributing to the success of Namecoin, for as long as they are needed or can provide additional services.

However I'm against the idea of gold/silver/bronze level memberships, it won't be good for competition based on what is being offered. Companies and people with money (okay, and already existing registrars) are able to pay for such a membership which will only make them stronger. You want the whole community – everyone with good ideas – to participate and contribute to Namecoin. This is in everyone's best interest and will ensure existing registrars have to keep working on their products and services.

I occasionally have some free time available and are willing to contribute to making a registrars page.

I only know of two, DomainCoin and dotbit.me. I believe DomainCoin is actually part of a larger company, albeit a small one.

You are right. I'm currently busy making DomainCoin.net part of my existing internet services company, indeed like you said a small company, based in The Netherlands. The company's core business is custom internet and hosting solutions, in some cases combined with application development. DomainCoin.net was started out of personal interest, but fits the company's activities perfectly well. DomainCoin.net will not stay as anonymous as it is right now (I actually didn't put any effort in making it anonymous), this will also be part of the transition.

Regarding the security, I dare to say DomainCoin.net is far more secure compared to most other user's wallets. DomainCoin.net benefits from everything I have at my disposal for my business.

Kind regards, Sander https://domaincoin.net and http://namecha.in

[indolering]

RE: Donations I doubt that the volume yet justifies a complex membership system. I would like to note that Kraken was given a free "silver" membership based on their past contributions. As I've said before, I would like to see more engagement from the registrars and I think this balances the playing field for the smaller registrars

That being said, we are rather desperate for cash right now and we will need a steady flow of income if we want to keep development robust. We aren't Namecoin baron's with 1Ks of NMC stashed away somewhere. We really do need help from the community. Once this becomes a sustainable portion of your business, I see no moral qualms with setting a low but fair price for some priority in advertising space.

If someone could come up with a rating system that was robust against scamming, perhaps that could be used to balance the big money players.

[indolering]

Oh, and thanks for posting @sdalemans!

[indolering]

I have to launch Speech.is tomorrow or I am really screwed on graduating. I don't have time to do this page myself, so if either registrar would like to have me link to them please get this thing done ASAP.

[indolering]

I don't understand (why the warning is so heavy handed)[http://namecoin.info/beta/?p=registrars]. The exchanges are just as bad in terms of security but we don't have a giant warning there.

I do support moving this to bit.namecoin.org, however.

[JeremyRand]

@indolering it's not heavy-handed, it's appropriately cautious. You're wrong, exchanges aren't nearly as bad in terms of security, because exchanges can't steal or hijack names, they can only steal fungible currency (which is replaceable if stolen).

[JeremyRand]

Also, the registrars page belongs on bit.namecoin.info, not www.namecoin.info. I pointed that out back in May.

[phelixbtc]

Close?

[JeremyRand]

@phelixbtc I've opened a ticket at the bit.namecoin.info repo with a link to this ticket for historical context, so yes, you're welcome to close this.