Until that day, it's reasonable for people to appeal to centralized Web2 entities to use their control to fix a problem inherent to centralized Web2 services.
A developer going to prison, and a relay failing because he couldn't update the registration, is a far cry from a developer's signing keys being passed onto a malicious replacement who then includes removal of Web3 functionality in a browser update that users approve.
>>This seems like a far more catastrophic problem than losing control of a relay domain.
That's completely irrelevant, as the risk you describe is just as present in Web2. Risk is strictly reduced by removing the reliance on Web2 relays, the risk of browser hijacking notwithstanding.
>>Web3 boils down to "we've decentralised it, which is inconvenient, so you can find links to all of the decentralised bits in this one convenient central location, so just go there".
I mean that's what the early Web was like, with people going to centralized mainframe computers to access it. Any technology will take time to deploy, and its full benefits will be largely unrealized while it has low adoption rates and primitive tooling.
Actually, I'd love for cryptobros to try to make a browsers on their own, just for the lulz. I'm guessing it fails at about... eh maybe they'll make a CSS parser before there's a rug pull on BrowserCoin
"If browsers had built-in Web3 functionality, the eth.link relay wouldn't be needed, and this whole situation would be moot."
The parent comment substantiates the claim, by citing Brave's ENS integration, and the lack of a need for a .link relay to access .eth domains when using it.
Cryptobros have this tendancy of being very obvious in their cult-like behaviour.
I don't remember exactly what happened after, but my immediate reaction was, "lol what? Why do they care about whether this is really Al? At worst, it just means some random benefactor is paying their own money so Al gets to see the PPV."
(IIRC he was paying cash too so there wasn't even an issue of CC fraud.)
https://docs.gandi.net/en/domain_names/renew/how_to_renew.ht...
> I read through the discussion area for that story and found that the problem had been tracked down to an outstanding invoice for passport.com at Network Solutions, the domain name registrar.
> I own a number of domains myself, including doublewide.net, so I'm no stranger to the payment system at Network Solutions. I went to the payment page at https://payments.networksolutions.com and typed in "passport.com", after which I was greeted with a page showing the outstanding invoice for $35. One of the buttons near the bottom of the page was "Make payment", so I pressed it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20031002153020/http://www.double...
> On Tuesday, December 28 I heard from Microsoft. I was happy to hear that the payment did fix Passport, and of course they wanted to reimburse me, and thank me.
With companies so lawyer-ed up, I wonder if that would be the case today. I'd be very hesitant before hitting submit in that payment page.
Due to money laundering regulations, that isn't really true anymore. Most banks straight up won't take cash deposits into someone else's account, identification or not. Other means (ACH, etc.) require KYC from the originating institution. I'm not sure about secure funds like a money order, but I'm guessing they'd be subject to some sort of verification as well.
I personally don't see a security issue with allowing anyone to renew any domain. It's not like you can change WHOIS information or the authoritative name servers -- you're just paying to continue with the existing ownership/configuration.
Seems inhumane.
Next on the crypto train is Sri Lanka. The Sri Lanka government is warning against using crypto, but we'll see if the citizens choose it over their own Rupees.
Bitcoin seems like a poor inflation hedge to me.
However, it does seem to be working out well for them. Joke is on me, I guess.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/8/15/sri-lankans-make...
When it comes to ICANN, rules are rules.
And yes, I am invested in the idea of not being dependent on a large corporation to authenticate my identity online, or a large bank to access my money. No surprise many people reject these ideas, given how many people's livelihoods now depend on institutions that are shaped around the existence of centralized points of control.
Just remember, the only way crypto/Web3 fails, is if a lot more people are put in prison, like the way the Netherlands put Alexey Pertsev in prison for publishing open source Tornado Cash code. Is that the world you want to live in?
This control they have has nothing to do with centralization or decentralization. They get it through the data-economy we live in - monopolistic companies syphoning petabytes of information about us to build impenetrable moats of data that smaller businesses can't compete with. Currency isn't even on their radar. It's irrelevant. When that cash or coin needs to be transferred into real tangible value, they'll be taking their share, regardless if the system that transaction is running on is an Pentium 3 AMEX COBOL server, or via the mining rig that came out last week consuming the energy from burning a small rainforest.
This has everything to do with centralization.. the exclusive access these companies have to vast troves of private data is a consequence of billions of people relying on a handful of companies to provide internet services to them.
If you say that decentralization is the solution, I'd retort "what are you even planning on decentralizing?", because most of their logistics isn't on "the internet", it's on the dark web
Owner deliberately created a bus factor issue and decided to violate sanctions against North Korea.
These sorts of disputes happen all the time. They don’t generally resolve with “contractor signs with counterparty’s name on new contracts in perpetuity.”
These people are beyond parody.