Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
A reminder on channels - Channels are *not* decentralized yet - Do not squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later; this is extractive behavior - When channels are decentralized and incorporated into the protocol later this year (likely onchain!), then you can do what you want! Just like FIDs
25 replies
29 recasts
280 reactions
dimsome
@dimsome.eth
- Channels are *not* decentralized yet - Therefore we have the right to take is away? - Do not squat channel names with the intention to sell them to brands later; this is extractive behavior - Then we need a better first come first serve system, if they would have been fully decentralised, what would you do then?
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> Therefore we have the right to take is away? Currently, yes! In the future, no. > if they would have been fully decentralised, what would you do then? If it was decentralized, then I couldn't? :) Question for you: Is it moral for a squatter to extract value from something they didn't build?
2 replies
0 recast
12 reactions
dimsome
@dimsome.eth
Exactly, your actions do not match the implied rules (as you mentioned in the ideal fully decentralised scenario). Morals of why someone initially creates a channel are beside the point if we think about something that can be as credible and neutral as possible.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Actions are entirely consistent with the username policy and in this case the user lied to me about being good faith / not trying to sell when we told the other party he was waiting to sell. Also squatted 10+ brands. Channels are not credibly neutral until they are in the protocol. You're making a claim I never made.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
