Oddbean

I agree that names are merely conventions, but I also think it’s helpful to have a unique namespace that allows me to tell someone how to find me even if we’re not directly connected through WoT. I’d guess such connections are an important way of creating WoT density.

If you want a global namespace, then you'll have name squatting and all the problems that come with it. On average the distance between two people is 6 hops, so it's very unlikely that you won't find what you are looking for. The problem is how to sort properly all the things that are connected to you.

If you could solve name-squatting would you find it useful? e.g. simple use case: imagine you see someone on a video interview and they have a by-line at the bottom of the screen where they can have their handle listed so you can find/follow them on nostr to learn more I agree WoT solves a lot, but I’m not convinced that it solves certain high impact, but possibly lower volume use-case

> If you could solve name-squatting would you find it useful? yes, but my guess is that it's unsolvable. Why? because it requires someone/something to know that "Apple" it's one npub and not all others, so it has to have knowledge of meatspace, of what "Apple Inc" the company listed on the stock exchange is. Such a protocol would have to have knowledge outside of its boundaries, and in some cases should rely on trusted third parties like in the example with stock exchange, which become trusted. Also, the use case you mention can be solved by adding the QR code of the npub next to the name, or by looking at the set of npubs next to the platform/that is interviewing the creator (I prefer the first)

I don’t believe it’s unsolvable, though I haven’t seen a solution yet which I would consider good enough. I would think of names as a socially agreed upon convention that can live entirely in digital space with no knowledge of meatspace. I don’t see any reason that Apple Inc should necessarily own the name “Apple”, but in an open market they might be able to pay more than “Farmer John’s Apple Orchard, Inc.” to purchase that scarce digital asset from a previous owner.

> I would think of names as a socially agreed upon convention that can live entirely in digital space with no knowledge of meatspace. Then there is no protection from name squatting > I don’t see any reason that Apple Inc should necessarily own the name “Apple”, but in an open market they might be able to pay more than “Farmer John’s Apple Orchard, Inc.” to purchase that scarce digital asset from a previous owner. This is literally name squatting.

I’m interested in thinking about ways of using digital scarcity (that we already have present in bitcoin) to prevent bots from taking all available names, while allowing Farmer John Apple to express their interest/demand for that specific name because of its relevance to their business.