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
277 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
dimsome
@dimsome.eth
Just thinking it can become dangerous if we start to do a bunch of backroom deals and exceptions for specific entities. If squatting is the problem, then we need better solutions that just taking it away because someone decided it's amoral.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
No backroom deals. What's your best solution to squatting? Because I have an imperfect but pragmatic one that's been working well for this community for 3 years. :)
0 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
