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.
39 replies
3 recasts
176 reactions
Ben - [C/x]
@benersing
1. Create a public list of suspected squatters and their channels. 2. Let people on the list make their case in public about their intentions for the channels. 3. Community votes on whether or not to revoke ‘ownership’.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
2. Why do intentions matter if they have been dormant for months? Won't they just make up a story? 3. Who gets to vote? Feels susceptible to sybil attacks.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Ben - [C/x]
@benersing
2. They don’t but if there’s due process, people have 0 ground to stand on arguing perceived centralization. 3. Accounts that would be eligible for a power badge if it still existed. This would also solve Sybil attack risk.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions