.crypto domains launching on 12/11

[Unstoppable Domains]

Hi NamePros,

We’re announcing the launch of the .crypto domain extension on 12/11. 50,000 domains have already been registered. Go to https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=namepros to find available domains.

You’ve probably all heard about cryptocurrency, but may not be aware that new domain extensions are being launched on blockchains. These domains are not part of the ICANN system. They are stored by the owner, with their private key, not by a registrar like Godaddy. No one can transfer a domain or update it other than the owner. If you store website content on decentralized storage instead of Amazon Web Services, then no one can take down your website other than you.

A blockchain domain + Decentralized storage = An uncensorable website

This is the beginning of an entirely new internet built to protect free speech around the world.


Blockchain domain features

• No Renewals - Pay once and it’s yours ... forever
  
  
• No Custodian - Domains are stored by the owner. No third party can move or update them
  
  
• Payments - The domain can be used as a payment address for cryptocurrencies. Send Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, or any other currency all to the same domain
  
  
• Uncensorable Websites - Attach domains to content on decentralized storage and create an uncensorable website
  
  
• Transfers - Escrow agents aren’t needed. Transfer to anyone in the world in under 1 minute with no risk of being defrauded

We’ll be moderating this thread and we’d love to hear your thoughts!


Brad Kam, Co-founder

This was a promoted post.​

 

[garptrader]

While current .ZIL or .CRYPTO domain holders do not have trademarks, if they are using them for legitimate business purposes (wallet to wallet transfers, crypto investments, etc), do they not already have a legit business use which would take precedence over any subsequent ICANN-launched equivalent? It would seem like any attempt to launch a non-blockchain .CRYPTO extension would be a marketing nightmare.

 

[CJ6]

As far as I know you can't trademark a domain extension.
It has been tried in the past and did not stop ICANN from delegating any extensions.

If this was the case then anyone could just file a trademark for a non-existent extension and then block it on those grounds.

Brad

However, they definitely have a business use and a working product. Therefore, UD may be able to take ICANN to court for a trademark violation, IMO, if ICANN issues a .crypto domain to another entity.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

As far as I know you can't trademark a domain extension.
It has been tried in the past and did not stop ICANN from delegating any extensions.

If this was the case then anyone could just file a trademark for a non-existent extension and then block it on those grounds.

Brad

It is without precedent for sure. No one can be completely sure what will happen. However, the key to trademark claims in general is around legitimate use. If lots of people are already using a system, I think that's the most important thing.

 

[bmugford]

It is without precedent for sure. No one can be completely sure what will happen. However, the key to trademark claims in general is around legitimate use. If lots of people are already using a system, I think that's the most important thing.

It is not without precedent. New.net was using extensions on an alternate root and ICANN had absolutely no problem delegating them anyway.

There have been trademarks for other non-existent extensions on the primary root and ICANN has had no problem delegating them.

Brad

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

That is fine. What is to stop endless other alternate root providers from launching their own .crypto then?
Nothing really.

Brad

Applications integrating them. Apps don't want to go through this extra effort. They only did integrated us after thousands of their customers requested it. This is a huge barrier for new domain extensions to launch. We had to go through extensive technical evaluation as well as an analysis of the viability of the registry.

 

[bmugford]

However, they definitely have a business use and a working product. Therefore, UD may be able to take ICANN to court for a trademark violation, IMO, if ICANN issues a .crypto domain to another entity.

This has already happened with .MUSIC for instance.

An official Legal Rights Objection was filed by DotMusic Limited against .music applicants since DotMusic Limited had registered trademarks for ".music" and "dotmusic" in nearly 30 countries.

They lost the objection.

http://domainincite.com/14332-roussos-loses-last-music-lro

Brad

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

It is not without precedent. New.net was using extensions on an alternate root and ICANN had absolutely no problem delegating them anyway.

There have been trademarks for other non-existent extensions on the primary root and ICANN has had no problem delegating them.

Brad

Hey Brad,

I meant it's without a 'favorable' precedent. But I think that the decisions previously made around ICANN super-ceding other roots was pretty sensible. Prior to the viability of decentralized networks like Ethereum, it was important to trust a centralized group like ICANN to establish what the legitimate and official registries are. Now that we can put such systems on public blockchains for anyone to look at and review the code, it makes more sense to let apps and users decide what systems they think are legitimate or want to use.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Legal discussions will always bring disagreement. Although, most will agree that lawyers love new technology.

Anyone who knows about the browser wars will agree to that. While companies were battling for legal position most users remained unaffected.

 

[griff]

This has already happened with .MUSIC for instance.

An official Legal Rights Objection was filed by DotMusic Limited against .music applicants since DotMusic Limited had registered trademarks for ".music" and "dotmusic" in nearly 30 countries.

They lost the objection.

http://domainincite.com/14332-roussos-loses-last-music-lro

Brad

More recent update on that it seems:

https://twitter.com/mus/status/1118553249445863426
https://music.us/press-releases/global-music-community-wins-music-domain-extension-rights/

 

[bmugford]

More recent update on that it seems:

https://twitter.com/mus/status/1118553249445863426
https://music.us/press-releases/global-music-community-wins-music-domain-extension-rights/

Right. There is a difference between a community application and legal rights objection.
The discussion was talking about legal rights.

Also, I am pretty sure they were the successful bidder for it. It was not just awarded to them.
That is a big difference.

Brad

 

[CJ6]

Right. There is a difference between a community application and legal rights objection.
The discussion was talking about legal rights.

Brad

And its a great discussion... hopefully not needed.

 

[griff]

Also, I am pretty sure they were the successful bidder for it. It was not just awarded to them.

Yep you're right, separate case including their own application - looking at a few examples it seems they're pretty consistent with these kinds of things even in more vague cases like the .amazon one with regard to applications vs objections, quite interesting stuff

 

[Brands.International]

1) That process is at least 3 years away. By that time, we will already have many major applications resolving .crypto domains. We think it will be difficult for the ICANN tld to replace this actual usage. Also, what would be the point of such a .crypto ICANN tld? Who would use it if it actively competes with the entire crypto community and doesn't work for payments or censorship resistant websites (the whole point of blockchain domains)
2) A court order or injunction will I'm sure be issued at some point. However, we do not control the domain names or web content. The user does with their private key. The courts will need to physically get control of that key to take down the website. There's nothing we can do.

We of course don't condone illegal activity and will work to discourage it. Objectionable content will likely not be resolved by browsers and search engines so it will be much harder to find.

Thanks for the great questions and discussion!

You are welcome and thank you for your answer!

Regarding .crypto ICANN new gTLD, I would tend to agree with some other members here that there might a certain likehood that it might be granted to another company in future new gTLD rounds.

So imagine I buy your blockchain domain name, let's say lolwarrior.crypto, and I will spend time and effort to build a nice website on it. What is your guarantee that scenario with .crypto ICANN tld will not happen?

Because if that happens, then logically there would need to be a decision whether either blockchain .crypto domains or standard ICANN .crypto domains are resolved in browsers of typical internet users...and if that would be in standard ICANN .crypto favour, my blockchain .crypto domain name could still be used for another functions, like crypto payments, but it will loose it's ability to serve me as an domain name because the content will simply not be resolved in browsers of typical internet users.. is this correct understanding?

 

[Not a robot]

@Unstoppable Domains , what action will be taken against .crypto Web site that post child porn or sell human organ? If you will not govern the address, how is it not dark web or alternative web?

 

[Keith]

This idea reminds me of PayPal.me and them allowing people to get things like PayPal.me/deposit. It hasn’t went well or better yet, isn’t needed.

When people want to send funds via PayPal, they use an email address. Nobody asks what your cute PayPal.me address is.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

You are welcome and thank you for your answer!

Regarding .crypto ICANN new gTLD, I would tend to agree with some other members here that there might a certain likehood that it might be granted to another company in future new gTLD rounds.

So imagine I buy your blockchain domain name, let's say lolwarrior.crypto, and I will spend time and effort to build a nice website on it. What is your guarantee that scenario with .crypto ICANN tld will not happen?

Because if that happens, then logically there would need to be a decision whether either blockchain .crypto domains or standard ICANN .crypto domains are resolved in browsers of typical internet users...and if that would be in standard ICANN .crypto favour, my blockchain .crypto domain name could still be used for another functions, like crypto payments, but it will loose it's ability to serve me as an domain name because the content will simply not be resolved in browsers of typical internet users.. is this correct understanding?

We can make no guarantee around what ICANN will do. However, I don't see how an ICANN .crypto would have credibility since it can't be used for crypto payments and is not a self custodied asset (like all blockchain assets). This would be false advertising on the part of an ICANN based promoter.

Moreover, the companies that are resolving it over the next few years will be against a colliding ICANN system and will contest such a move. Lastly, we have applied for the TM and will contest such an alternate launch. If previous cases like this are precedent, then it's likely such an issue won't be resolved until several years beyond 2022. This means that .crypto has plenty of time to grow into a standard across browsers, wallets, and other apps.

I think it's illogical for the ICANN system to invite such chaos if a domain extension is already in use across the world. And if they do, apps can still ignore them. And cryptocurrency wallets are starting to add browser functionality to their apps as well. it's dangerous to have two systems at once, ours will have already wide use, and ours will be an actual blockchain system, unlike an ICANN .crypto.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

@Unstoppable Domains , what action will be taken against .crypto Web site that post child porn or sell human organ? If you will not govern the address, how is it not dark web or alternative web?

At the root level, no action is possible. Once a domain has been distributed, it can only be moved by the owner. That's the security behind the system. Domain seizures and content take downs are impossible. Anyone can post a record to the blockchain. No one can stop them. On the 2nd layer though, apps can choose what records to read from the blockchain or not. It actually becomes far easier to identify bad content because lists of 'bad actor' addresses can also be put on the blockchain for any other apps to reference. What will happen in reality is that while no one can be taken down, if something is terrible, 99.999% of apps won't show it. Just like the current system. If something is controversial, but lots of people want to see it. It will be impossible to suppress. It relies on the popularity of the content. Decentralized websites are far better tools for pro-social behavior like free speech protesting. Far worse for anti-social behavior like making money from crime because apps and users will want to share the former with the network, not the latter.

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

This idea reminds me of PayPal.me and them allowing people to get things like PayPal.me/deposit. It hasn’t went well or better yet, isn’t needed.

When people want to send funds via PayPal, they use an email address. Nobody asks what your cute PayPal.me address is.

Agreed. Paypal names were pointless. They already have human readable names - email addresses. Our human readable names are self custody. Gmail can't take away your account, no one can. And the same address can be used inside of multiple apps, not just your one gmail client. It's like having a paypal or venmo account that you completely control.

 

[Keith]

Agreed. Paypal names were pointless. They already have human readable names - email addresses. Our human readable names are self custody. Gmail can't take away your account, no one can. And the same address can be used inside of multiple apps, not just your one gmail client. It's like having a paypal or venmo account that you completely control.

But just like email addresses, we already have crypto payment addresses. No difference there. The ability to pronounce or not pronounce something doesn’t make it less credible.

To me this is a case of trying to reinvent the wheel but who knows...

 

[Unstoppable Domains]

But just like email addresses, we already have crypto payment addresses. No difference there. The ability to pronounce or not pronounce something doesn’t make it less credible.

To me this is a case of trying to reinvent the wheel but who knows...

Crypto addresses don't currently have human readable names. That's what we're trying to change. Here's what I would currently share with you if I want you to pay me in crypto -
ethereum: 0x020e7c546B1567FfC7f6202Ca5F748533523dADc
bitcoin: 1EVt92qQnaLDcmVFtHivRJaunG2mf2C3mB

Instead I could attach all of my addresses to brad.crypto. I could have hundreds of them. I tell you the domain, and you type it into a wallet and pay me. You don't need to ask me to send you an address or addresses. We don't even need to decide on which currency you want to send me because my domain has been configured with all of the currencies that I am willing to receive.