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
Thibauld
@thibauld
My ultimate dream would be that you implement some sort of harberger tax on channels... and let the free market do the rest! https://medium.com/@simondlr/what-is-harberger-tax-where-does-the-blockchain-fit-in-1329046922c6 For example, you could set a (completely subjective) minimum amount of channel activity required to be able to disable the harberger tax on your channel (i.e. great channel owners pay the tax in kind by being great channel owners). If you're not a great channel owner (activity below threshold), then you have no choice but be subject to the harberger tax and anyone who thinks they can do a better job can pay to become the new channel owner. Honestly that would be SICK! I'd love to see it.
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Thibauld
@thibauld
cc @simondlr @vitalik.eth ☝️
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
