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
Pichi 🟪🍖🐹🎩 🍡🌸
@pichi
Refund them and take them back.
4 replies
0 recast
34 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Channels are a yearly fee. How do you think pro-rated refund? They've cost the network a genuine person trying to build a community.
1 reply
0 recast
9 reactions
Bitfloorsghost
@bitfloorsghost.eth
ya i think this is the best and most above board way
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Jason
@jachian
Yup this. Especially if there’s someone waiting to build up that city channel
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Rue🗽
@rue1776
This ☝️
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction