discuss Handshake domains

[Synozeer]

There's been talk about .eth and .crypto, but I haven't seen many posts on here about Handshake.

Handshake is a naming protocol that's backwards compatible with the existing DNS system. It does not replace the DNS protocol, but instead expands the root zone file where TLD ownership information is stored by adding a distributed and decentralized blockchain-based system that no one controls and anyone can use. This allows for a root zone that is uncensorable, permissionless, and free of gatekeepers like ICANN.

https://learn.namebase.io/about-handshake/about-handshake

This is what I believe the next step in domains will potentially be. Instead of just registering domains under new TLDs, you actually own the TLD and can sell subdomains (my.wallet/, use your TLD as a web address (synozeer/), and also use your TLD as a username on sites that allow it.

A few domain registrars already allow registrations under various Handshake TLDs, and you can bid on new TLDs along with buy/sell from the marketplace at https://namebase.io. Namecheap just bought the p/ TLD for $230,000 and they said they are looking to support Handshake. Brave browser should also be releasing an update soon that will allow for Handshake domains to be accessed using their browser.

It's really interesting technology and I can see it being adopted by a lot of big companies in the future. Of course, it's all speculative, but people have been making good money buying/selling TLDs and subdomains.

The best two TLDs I own in my opinion are .visit and .articles. Lots of end user uses (hawaii.visit/, seo.articles/, etc.) but there are some killer ones out there. The owner of .c/ has already sold several hundred domains under his TLD and some others like xr/ and defi/ are doing well.

 

[firefly2002]

I picked up some two letter .c domains.

for example ap.c

any value?

 

[Santaclaws]

The "independence" factor seems overhyped. All this really does is make Google, Apple and co. the new ICANN. For example someone registeres a trademarked HLS domain, it resolves on Chrome. The trademark holder may not be able to find and petition the domain holder -- but they can sure as heck sue Google. As a result Chrome blocks it, and so on.

Google and Apple are not going to let their browsers (and APIs, etc.) resolve domains that could be (or host) anything under the sun with no accountability. Spoof companies plus all the darkest darkness you can imagine. And they're not going to hire thousands of people to continually vet every HLS domain. With ICANN and ccTLDs, at least they can offload some of the responsibility to the registries, wash their hands. With HLS domains, Google and Apple are the only ones in the (visible) firing line. Who'd want to be there?

Even smaller browsers like Brave -- the first round of litigation and they might have to rethink. Regardless, a few rows added to the App Store or Google Play guidelines can easily stop any browser that resolves HLS domains.

And what happens if someone registers a handshake domain and then ICANN registers the same one? Right now HLS is trying to dance around ICANN, but for how long till they step on toes? For example there is already an HLS domain .thailand. Let's say the gov of Thailand goes to ICANN and registers it. Now what? For browsers that do resolve HLS, what are they going to do? Put up a Wikipedia-style disambiguation page every single load? Of course the browser will default to the ICANN option, and the first time that happens it'll be clear who's boss.

Basically it's all very hyped. Doesn't mean HLS domains don't have value, pixelated gifs of potatoes sold as NFTs have value. But this future of a decentralised web? Dunno.

 

[jamesau]

Google and Apple are not going to let their browsers (and APIs, etc.) resolve domains that could be (or host) anything under the sun with no accountability. Spoof companies plus all the darkest darkness you can imagine. And they're not going to hire thousands of people to continually vet every HLS domain. With ICANN and ccTLDs, at least they can offload some of the responsibility to the registries, wash their hands. With HLS domains, Google and Apple are the only ones in the (visible) firing line. Who'd want to be there?

Browsers are actually the sensible choice to provide filtering on the Internet. It should be their responsibility to filter out these websites and Handshake stakeholders would be glad to see this implemented.

HNS being used for evil is the same argument as Bitcoin only being used for drugs and the darkweb. Try finding a local drug dealer who doesn't want payment in fiat.

My personal view on this is Handshake is the only credible threat to domains as we know it. Unstoppable and ENS are just fun.

I would urge anybody on Namepros to seriously consider getting involved in Handshake, as a hedge on your traditional domain portfolio if nothing else.

 

[jamesau]

[See above]

 

[jamesau]

In my opinion, there will never be a resale market for this. I thought it looked neat enough to sign up and try to grab a brandable name that I have. I went to the site, credit card in hand, ready to spend money and, after I register, I'm greeted with this:

> Before you can start trading HNS, you must first verify your profile. This is because Namebase is an incorporated company that has to follow normal AML/KYC laws like other onramps such as Coinbase.

Hard pass. I'm not giving KYC (know your customer) levels of personal information to some random internet company just so I can spend $5. I use a prepaid credit card for stuff like this, so if I'm not even willing to give them my real CC number, what on earth makes anyone think I'm going to start handing over things like my photo ID, SIN (like a SSN), etc.?

All these crypto businesses are DOA if you need to provide KYC documentation to spend money. Plus, just to make it even worse, in my jurisdiction (Canada), every transaction is considered a taxable event where I'm supposed to track capital gains and losses vs "fair market value" so I can claim them on my taxes.

The idea of a blockchain based DNS is very cool, but tying it to crypto currency that fluctuates in value and is treated like a security in most western countries ruins its usefulness IMO.

Is this through Namebase? You need to go through Bobwallet or an alternative for a decentralized experience with no KYC.

 

[barybadrinath]

I have a very basic question. Sorry for my little knowledge in the field.

I bought some dotc domains , .xr , .ud domains via gateway.io

How are these .c , .xr etc different from Username/ domains. Do they both fall under hns category.

How is namebase.io , gateway.io and unstoppable domains diff from each other sir.

Also .eth falls under ens domains.

Are hns and ens domains related.

.eth can be opened on browser such as Google Chrome, firefox but hns cannot. Which browsers do we need for them.

Currently we use web2. How is web3 different from web3. What are the basic and main differences.

Will .com and other popular extensions work on web 3.0

 

[jamesau]

I bought some dotc domains , .xr , .ud domains via gateway.io

How are these .c , .xr etc different from Username/ domains. Do they both fall under hns category.

How is namebase.io , gateway.io and unstoppable domains diff from each other sir.

All good questions.

Those extensions from gateway.io are also HNS domains, just subdomains. In theory you should be able to use them the same as any Handshake domain for things like HNS login.

I would also recommend buying some top level domains at Namebase or via Bobwallet if you prefer decentralized. These are what really have potential for investors.

Ultimately if extensions like .c ever reach mainstream adoption and browser compatibility then all other HNS names will too.

Namebase helps users register Handshake top level domains. Gateway helps users register Handshake subdomains (more like traditional domains). Unstoppable is a separate entity that only provides subdomains on their own system.

Also .eth falls under ens domains.

Are hns and ens domains related.

.eth can be opened on browser such as Google Chrome, firefox but hns cannot. Which browsers do we need for them.

ENS is it's own project. It's not possible to access these domains in a browser without a plugin.

Best way to access all decentralized domains right now is to install Fingertip which is a simple desktop app that adds DNS: https://impervious.com/fingertip.html

 

[barybadrinath]

Thanks. This clears a lot.
One more thing. You have recommended to buy some TLDs at namebase. Does it mean that investors should buy extensions like .c , .xr , etc as a whole. After buying these kind of TLDs he/she will be the sole owner of them and can then sell subdomains on them as gatewaY.io is doing for .c etc.
Any rough idea for how much gateway got .c tld for from namebase ??

 

[barybadrinath]

Also if you may shed some light on basic diff between icann owned domains and namebase domains. Decentralised ones. What advantage will the common man have from decentralised domains as compared to current .com etc
Also Do we need to renew these TLDs as well once bought from namebase. I see that after buying .c subdomains from gateway , it's renewal is around 20 usd per annum.

 

[barybadrinath]

Is there any platform in existence where we can list .c and other web3 extension domains for sale.
Gateway.io doesn't seem to allow listing domains for sale which were bought via their platform.
Thanks for all the information.

 

[jamesau]

One more thing. You have recommended to buy some TLDs at namebase. Does it mean that investors should buy extensions like .c , .xr , etc as a whole. After buying these kind of TLDs he/she will be the sole owner of them and can then sell subdomains on them as gatewaY.io is doing for .c etc.

Yes that's correct. Once you own the Handshake name like bary you can sell unlimited subdomains like nft.bary

Any rough idea for how much gateway got .c tld for from namebase ??

See https://www.namebase.io/domains/c

Because this is all on chain it could be incredible for domain clarity. Imagine how much more data we would have as investors if all sales were public.

Is there any platform in existence where we can list .c and other web3 extension domains for sale.
Gateway.io doesn't seem to allow listing domains for sale which were bought via their platform.
Thanks for all the information.

You can sell them through Namebase or if you have a hyper-premium name like .c I'm sure you can talk with Gateway directly.

Also Do we need to renew these TLDs as well once bought from namebase. I see that after buying .c subdomains from gateway , it's renewal is around 20 usd per annum.

No renewal as you currently know it. Just a blockchain transaction (currently not even $0.01) every 2 years to prove the name is active to ensure names are not burned like all those Bitcoins sent to the dump on old HDDs.

The .c renewal is decided by the owner of the .c Handshake name.

 

[barybadrinath]

Yes that's correct. Once you own the Handshake name like bary you can sell unlimited subdomains like nft.bary



See https://www.namebase.io/domains/c

Because this is all on chain it could be incredible for domain clarity. Imagine how much more data we would have as investors if all sales were public.



You can sell them through Namebase or if you have a hyper-premium name like .c I'm sure you can talk with Gateway directly.



No renewal as you currently know it. Just a blockchain transaction (currently not even $0.01) every 2 years to prove the name is active to ensure names are not burned like all those Bitcoins sent to the dump on old HDDs.

The .c renewal is decided by the owner of the .c Alright I'll let the team know and get back to you slight_smile name.

Thanks a lot buddy. I appreciate your time.

 

[Keith]

Once you own the Handshake name like bary you can sell unlimited subdomains like nft.bary

You mean a handshake domain like bary/ and nft.bary/

Let’s not forget the added slash which is the big downfall with these.

 

[HotKey]

Let’s not forget the added slash which is the big downfall with these.

Why?
Oh oh, gotta add the f-slash to my tld.. game over.

Personally, I like it. The / in TLD/ gives Handshake its identity and what separates it. Going forward, with the forward slash, browsers will need a way to know when to make a string resolve to a tld from the url.

Its like saying it's hard to put the dot between domain and com.

 

[Keith]

Why?
Oh oh, gotta add the f-slash to my tld.. game over.

Personally, I like it. The / in TLD/ gives Handshake its identity and what separates it. Going forward, with the forward slash, browsers will need a way to know when to make a string resolve to a tld from the url.

Its like saying it's hard to put the dot between domain and com.

The world is already trained to use the . and we’ll be dead before they catch on to /

Believe me, I’d like to think that EV/ is gold but it’ll never compare to EV.com

Btw, type any of these in your browser and see where it goes lol. All to the .com

 

[HotKey]

The world is already trained to use the . and we’ll be dead before they catch on to /

Believe me, I’d like to think that EV/ is gold but it’ll never compare to EV.com

Btw, type any of these in your browser and see where it goes lol. All to the .com

I agree to an extent. Handshake has a ton of hurdles to overcome, it could easily be a generation before they satisfy everyone.

Your either on board for the ride or not, but looking at people who aren't domain investors who have taken to it shows that new stuff can be adopted even when its outside of what we're used to.

 

[Santaclaws]

Browsers are actually the sensible choice to provide filtering on the Internet. It should be their responsibility to filter out these websites and Handshake stakeholders would be glad to see this implemented.

It would be welcome by many for sure, but in reality all that does is cement Google and Apple’s control of the ecosystem and in doing so makes HLS domains a highly centralised commodity. But it’s a moot point, it makes little legal sense for Google or Apple, especially in the current climate, to police or control HLS domains in any way shape or form. And if the consequences of both policing and not policing are equally frightening then the only answer is to stay away, not support HLS in any official capacity (perhaps promote a few plug-ins for a small tech-savvy crowd and monitor usage.) At this point Apple is wary to even support progressive web apps, something pretty benign, to say nothing of HLS.

With the browser situation the way it is, it's akin to having 80% of Bitcoin transactions forced through either JP Morgan or Deutsche Bank, it doesn't work and it makes HLS domains a very un-bitcoin like thing.

And the browser situation is not going to change, modern browsers are tied up with far too many other things besides simply browsing (accounts, services, cloud this and that). If anything there will be even more browser centralisation as the developing world comes on 100% with Safari, Chrome and their offspring.

All that said, it's very hard to see a path to widespread adoption.

 

[jamesau]

You mean a handshake domain like bary/ and nft.bary/

Let’s not forget the added slash which is the big downfall with these.

This is only an early adopter problem. If this tech is adopted the slash will not be required for subdomains. That said most browsers will probably still resolve phrases without dots as search queries.

It would be welcome by many for sure, but in reality all that does is cement Google and Apple’s control of the ecosystem and in doing so makes HLS domains a highly centralised commodity. But it’s a moot point, it makes little legal sense for Google or Apple, especially in the current climate, to police or control HLS domains in any way shape or form. And if the consequences of both policing and not policing are equally frightening then the only answer is to stay away, not support HLS in any official capacity (perhaps promote a few plug-ins for a small tech-savvy crowd and monitor usage.) At this point Apple is wary to even support progressive web apps, something pretty benign, to say nothing of HLS.

With the browser situation the way it is, it's akin to having 80% of Bitcoin transactions forced through either JP Morgan or Deutsche Bank, it doesn't work and it makes HLS domains a very un-bitcoin like thing.

And the browser situation is not going to change, modern browsers are tied up with far too many other things besides simply browsing (accounts, services, cloud this and that). If anything there will be even more browser centralisation as the developing world comes on 100% with Safari, Chrome and their offspring.

All that said, it's very hard to see a path to widespread adoption.

Definitely agree but there is already a trend amongst early adopters to move away from those big platforms.

I really don't think there are any new problems in terms of content that are not already problems today. There is filth out there on every corner of the Internet right now, and in many ways HNS and community ownership could help to improve that with simpler reporting and blocking.

Don't get me wrong Handshake is still a moonshot but Namecheap getting on board has so far been hugely underplayed.

 

[jamesau]

The world is already trained to use the . and we’ll be dead before they catch on to /

Believe me, I’d like to think that EV/ is gold but it’ll never compare to EV.com

Btw, type any of these in your browser and see where it goes lol. All to the .com

I actually hope that most domains continue that redirecting behaviour. We all still want .com to be king.

It's no different to most ngTLDs redirecting to the .com. For most it's defensive.

I still don't believe in ngTLDs as a domain investor. The registries take all the cream.

But with HNS there's that slim possibility to be the registry.

 

[Santaclaws]

There is filth out there on every corner of the Internet right now, and in many ways HNS and community ownership could help to improve that with simpler reporting and blocking.

Sure there's a heap of bad stuff out there on the normal web, but you cannot go to crack.com and place an order for crack. There are multiple levels of take-down for such a thing, from ICANN to the national registry to the registrar and so on. If I create crack.crack on the blockchain, that's a different story. Nobody can really "take it down", so to speak, not the community, not the authorities (what authorities?) -- The only true layer or insulation is with the browser. And again, that puts policing firmly in the hands of Google and Apple, neither of whom want that job by any stretch of the imagination.

And again, other browsers won't likely emerge -- the very idea of a standalone browser not tied to a massive ecosystem is something that's already out step with the non-techy mainstream. Just seems like a very tough sell.

 

[jamesau]

And again, other browsers won't likely emerge -- the very idea of a standalone browser not tied to a massive ecosystem is something that's already out step with the non-techy mainstream. Just seems like a very tough sell.

I would have thought Firefox is an exception? But I don't know how much they are integrated into the larger ecosystems.

 

[Santaclaws]

I would have thought Firefox is an exception? But I don't know how much they are integrated into the larger ecosystems.

Well Firefox has about 3% browser share combined, and only 0.5% on mobile, where the action is in emerging markets. Plus the Mozilla Foundation, although a US non-profit organisation, is treated as a legal entity capable of suing and being sued. And any browser that resolves a contentious blockchain domain will be sued, given that the browser is about the only thing in the chain that can be sued (or even identified). And there will be contentious domains, including blatant trademark violations, it's just a matter of time. Meaning the Mozilla Foundation will inevitably be sued, and, given the way things are going at the FCC, it's very likely the Mozilla Foundation will lose and be liable for considerable damages -- putting a big question mark over their further support for blockchain domains in general. So yeah, while a great idea in theory it really does look like a tough road to walk in practice.

 

[jamesau]

Well Firefox has about 3% browser share combined, and only 0.5% on mobile, where the action is in emerging markets. Plus the Mozilla Foundation, although a US non-profit organisation, is treated as a legal entity capable of suing and being sued. And any browser that resolves a contentious blockchain domain will be sued, given that the browser is about the only thing in the chain that can be sued (or even identified). And there will be contentious domains, including blatant trademark violations, it's just a matter of time. Meaning the Mozilla Foundation will inevitably be sued, and, given the way things are going at the FCC, it's very likely the Mozilla Foundation will lose and be liable for considerable damages -- putting a big question mark over their further support for blockchain domains in general. So yeah, while a great idea in theory it really does look like a tough road to walk in practice.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I think we've successfully debated why browsers controlling access is a challenge but it's worth clarifying for other readers that I don't think this has a huge bearing on Handshake's overall chances of success.

There are many outcomes which would be considered a success. As domainers one would be the whitelisting of Handshake powered extensions not controlled by ICANN.

 

[Santaclaws]

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I think we've successfully debated why browsers controlling access is a challenge but it's worth clarifying for other readers that I don't think this has a huge bearing on Handshake's overall chances of success.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and I'd like to share it, but browser control has a monumental bearing on Handshake's overall chance of success. Domains need browsers. As for whitelisting, that is a most likely a non-starter for Google and Apple -- and if not them either doing or making use of the whitelisting, then who?

 

[jamesau]

I appreciate your enthusiasm and I'd like to share it, but browser control has a monumental bearing on Handshake's overall chance of success. Domains need browsers. As for whitelisting, that is a most likely a non-starter for Google and Apple -- and if not them either doing or making use of the whitelisting, then who?

Google and Apple just provide access to the content people want. If that content is on .whatever then allowing access is trivial.

Unstoppable Domains (.crypto) is accessible on Opera browser so the first steps are already happening. Admittedly there are many steps between this and Chrome.