I’m not fully sure I understand the question, do you mean if I have public name “mypub” then you mean if the map stored at sha3(“mypub”) is encrypted using somehow “mypub” as the secret key to encrypt it? in any case it’s not encryptd currently, it’s a public map that anyone can fetch and read
Precisely - okay - that would mean it’s stored in clear text in vaults too - yes that’s what I meant
It allows to become the default owner of a name (if the name is not addressed with defined ‘candidate number’) yes but people would still be able to access your site with your name - it’s just no longer default behaviour
Nobody can steal anything - but yes people/companies can play games if they want to burn Money - you would not be able to just register the names of the largest 10000 corporations and extort huge money for letting them use their names on safe again because they didn’t know about it on day 1 but you did… you can try to hinder someone in using a specific name but it costs you too… That’s the idea of the whole concept
Ps: I am very sure you’re annoyed by me because I criticise a lot lately but that doesn’t mean that Senecas idea is bad and I would suggest you have a look into the old topic on main forum I brought back to the front page (RFC - Decentralised Naming System II - continuous auction (by Seneca) - Features - Safe Network Forum)
This is what I meant like virtually being stolen, I guess you imagine the browser or whatever app is used to fetch it to tell you (in the best of the scenarios) something like "the original owner is X but latest version belongs to Y, which one you wanna see? "
Why I shouldn’t be able to own safe://cocacola if I wanted and were able to? or why you shouldn’t be able to own safe://bochaco if you wanted and were able to?
I never said Seneca’s idea is bad, I remember reading that back then and don’t remember much of it really.
Why should I have the right to own bochaco more than you (and am able to sell it to you or just upload annoying stuff there) only because I had the right script running at launch and you helped your grandma in that moment while you really want that domain (and are willing to give the safe ecosystem 100 dollars for showing your art work as default on that site)…?
With a continuous auction everybody has the same right to own every name no matter when you heared of safe or if Anybody does like your color of skin and is willing to sell you the name (and make him rich) or not
Why not? [20 chars.]
1 Like
Because all people are created equal 
and safe is meant to not discriminate
So you mean because I’ve chosen the nickname in this forum earlier (because I arrived earlier than anyone else wanted this nickname) I have the right to own it in safe:// but that doesn’t apply to SAFE itself?
The same applies to the companies names.
1 Like
I mean that everyone should have the same right to use this name - no matter when he is born or learns about safe
Companies with a lot of Money are rich because we give them a lot of money (and for example buy apple products) that the name apple then directs to the electronics manufacturer does make a lot of sense therefore and is no unfair advantage 
And you believe money/safecoins will do it?
1 Like
Yes indeed … (because of the reason I edited into the last comment - sorry - hit sent too fast)
At least better than any other concept I’ve seen so far
Do you want to imply that domain squatting would resolve the issue?
1 Like
I don’t see such a big deal with that problem myself, it’s just what it is. If I imagine a world with no money, just for a second, I wouldn’t be able to have a house in front of Hyde park if I wished, just because there where others who arrived earlier, is that fair/unfair? it’s just what it is.
1 Like
yes - and if someone just kills all spanish people and sais ‘well - this land is mine’ is just as it is too - just that something is what it is can’t justify further injustice
how about maybe you want to first read the actual suggestion made by seneca: https://safenetforum.org/t/rfc-decentralised-naming-system-ii-continuous-auction-by-seneca/5076 - i neither have time to argue with you nor do i think you want to really know about it otherwise (because then you would read the suggestion instead of arguing here with me and as i mentioned - i don’t have time and don’t want to waste it arguing with you who obviously don’t like the suggestion at first glance because i mentioned it and like it …)
This is what I see to be the same as allowing using safecoins to get the public name virtually owned by others by just putting more (safecoins) onto it
1 Like
that more doesn’t come from nothing - that more comes because ‘people’ make those people rich … and they give back society by paying in safecoin and the world becomes more equal again
and suddenly it’s not
but it is not fair because you are not okay with it
don’t worry i don’t have much money - i won’t ‘steal you your name’ i just would prefer a fair system that doesn’t bring some few people in positions where they make money off of all the rest of the world … (while fueling the fear of people here to have stolen “their rightful name” you are actually advocating a system supporting the unfairness in this world)
[and i’m out here again - please read the suggestion and think about it for a moment before arguing against it just because it’s coming from me please - i really have No Time Atm!]
how can you be sure of this? and this is contradictory to making it fair, just because I’m rich I can own (by stealing it from you) your public name with the excuse I’m paying the farmers a lot of money and that’s a fairer move?
1 Like
and if that is the norm and the regular little man doesn’t stand a chance against the evil rich trolls and rich corporations those little people have no other option than just to stick with this naming system that was meant to benefit them but suddenly was used against them
i see your point - indeed
ps: sorry for not staying calm - but it’s a bit difficult for me when being stressed do cope with arguments that are no arguments at all imo …
That is another point beyond the naming wars between people, scammers, big businesses, etc who fight over ownership of names and the public have a casino gaming as to which site will actually result from search engines that cannot keep up.
So its a case of the richest will own all the sensible names and everyone else (90 odd % of the population) have to take weird names. This is just as bad as name squatting, except it can be done retroactively.
Its a scammers delight and no people will use search engines and you cannot force them to keep some specialised form of linking. The search engine could have "science (earth model and gravity) but the link could be copied and pasted (or bookmarked) as a raw link and then tomorrow the site is telling the user that all that science is fake. Then the next day it could be about fairies. And overall the poor will pay a number of times to own their original choice and then may get to the point of not having enough money to eventually own it.
But in the end the richest wins and is worse than domain squatting since you can never know if you will eventually own your named site or someone the next day will pay more.
3 Likes
It does seem to add more problems than it solves. I like that we’re trying to solve this one, but tend to the conclusion that there isn’t a sensible alternative to first come first served. At least it favours early adopters to an extent.
One thing I’m not clear on is whether we can make it hard/expensive to transfer names. If we could do that it would make squatting less profitable and reduce that activity.
What if it favors say 2-10 people who:
a) have enough safecoin
and b) have their “squat everything conceivably useful” scripts ready at launch
(I don’t really care about the fairness aspect of having enough coins to do so. I just added it as it would be a prerequisite since there is at least some small cost to creating a name)
Interesting idea, but if that’s the case, I think it kind of opens a different attack vector. You can still run your “squat everything conceivably useful” script, but your goal would be profiting from locking everybody out (like a denial of service) instead of profiting from reselling.
1 Like
Then I would need to sell my whole account including my credentials when someone is willing to give me a lot of money for that domain (or I would need to create a separate account just for creating a website - so as long as I can transfer accounts it’s not possible and just add additional ways to loose domain names forever… )
You are painting a horror vision here without any proof - senecas suggestion included to show the highest ranked options (you could sign then with your Web id and show that one)
Would you fight a war about a name? I personally would probably just move on and pick a different name if someone annoys me by wanting the same one…
Sure - early adopters with a script
… And as mentioned… It’s super easy to implement +not a problem to go back to first come first serve in case this really turns out to be problematic 
I don’t know what precisely you are afraid of 
(and is there a reason this discussion isn’t in the main forum but here? I think it would be way more fruitful if done over there…)
Ps: and squatting is not the only problem that is solved here… If I forget my credentials after launch I loose my public name… And have no chance to get it back no matter how ridiculous it is… With the continuous auction that wouldn’t be a problem and I would just need to tell my people to remove me from their contact list and add the newer one
There are for example huge numbers of bitcoin lost forever too… That’s not a problem for money - because every bitcoin is treated the same in shops … But with names it’s different… And early users are more likely to 1. Get the good names + 2. Loose access to them because value is low…