Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What should we do with egregious examples of squatted channels? I'm going to call this individual out since it's clearly squatting — @0xg — is sitting on a bunch of city channels and not actively building communities: /denver /la /losangeles /nyc /newyorkcity /newyork /sanfrancisco (Also the multiple variations of city names with no activity is clear squatting and when there are active communities in /los-angeles /sf /new-york.) A few other thoughts: 1. We have a no squatting policy for fnames and we allow ENS for a name that isn't governed by that policy. 2. We never advertised channels as something you buy and own forever. Has been centralized and experimental since we allowed anyone to create a channel last December. 3. I'm sympathetic to someone who is good faith trying to build a community, but that's not squatting. 4. Squatting is squishy, know it when you see, not deterministic. 5. Ultimately, squatters are massive negative externality on the network. It's parasitic, anti-social behavior.
38 replies
4 recasts
77 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
Some ideas: 1. Make all channels have some random non-colliding namespace (e.g. random suffix like /denver-9871 or namespaced under the creator or something else) but allow "blessed" pointers from a non-namespaced version that is managed by the client (warpcast), so /foo would be a pointer to /foo-1234 and the pointer can change (while /foo-1234 can keep the existing audience etc). 2. When you make channels decentralized, have a decentralized namespace option like ENS? (Could even be a subdomain.) Then could pre-reserve ones for well-behaved channels. IMO #1 is better, but could be some hybrid solution maybe.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
2. We're leaning toward a CID / cname + ENS (similar to what we do on FID / fnames + ENS)
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
