discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Discuss mailing list
List archive
- From: Alex Hanselka <alex AT opennicproject.org>
- To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
- Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:54:56 -0500
As far as I know, no. That is not even technically possible due to it's distributed nature.
On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Amrit Panesar wrote:
Does .bit have a policy about purging/removing domains that do not have any records for X amount of time?If not, this might be what is needed to help combat domain squattingElse, lets think about the signal to noise ratio here. The .bit zone is huge, how much is content and how much spam?Personally, I'm all for indoctrinating a new TLD, however those might be a couple issues some would to visit.You have my vote, for now. However, I would like to see some statistics of the user-base as well as the amount of content. Hopefully the zone will be worth the memory (for those slaving zones on low memory configs).Thanks--Neo
Sent from my iPhoneOn Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:42 PM, <woodq11 AT gmail.com> wrote:To understand my above statement about spam and squatting, one may want to
look at the Namecoin block explorer, which paints a fairly clear picture about
why Dot Bit has such a large number of domains.
e.g. The recent "beanie.bit" domain was registered, marked as "for sale," and
pointed to a porn site. While I have no problem with this in general (though I
think it's foolish), I don't feel that the OpenNIC project should worry about
acting as a gateway to it.You convert Bitcoins to Namecoins and use Namecoins to "purchase" these domains, right?
---
//Alex
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Julian DeMarchi, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, woodq11, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, woodq11, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Nordlund, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Amrit Panesar, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Hanselka, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, woodq11, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Hanselka, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Amrit Panesar, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Nordlund, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, woodq11, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Filip Lamparski, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Hanselka, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Sam Dodrill, 07/12/2012
- Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, Alex Hanselka, 07/12/2012
- Re: Re: [opennic-discuss] DRAFT : Peering agreement between OpenNIC and DotBIT, woodq11, 07/12/2012
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.