- domain can be seized
- blockchain can not own a domain
so this would be cool for a crowdfunding, but not for the reserve fund in my opinion.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
so this would be cool for a crowdfunding, but not for the reserve fund in my opinion.
I support Fav.
No need to waste time and money on this .com domain. Put the fund into development and marketing.
ETH uses https://www.ethereum.org/
NEM uses https://nem.io/
NEO uses https://neo.org/
Are they trying to switch to .com domain?
Interesting perspective. The whole distributed concept of ownership and how it applies here is something that I didn't think about right away.
In any case, I think it's important that people vested in Bitshares' success have control of the domain.
To Answer @ash
It sure would suck if Charles Hoskinson bought it and wrote an ode to Daniel Larimer.
It sure would suck if someone bought it and setup a phishing site.
It sure would suck if someone bought it and cloned DEX and gets all of the traffic from the people that don't know any better...
It sure would suck to lose all of these potential customers being driven by the celebrity campaigns we are setting up.
What if whoever receives ownership goes rogue? Even more a reason to not buy
Also, Bitshares.org can be seized, how is that part relevant?
Then the wallet will be copy pasted on another domain, and it did not cost 250k.
In my opinion, eventually many if not all assets will be owned using a blockchain of some sort. It's likely that there will be a way to have a multisig distributed ownership of this type of asset. So, get the name now and transfer ownership once the capability exists.
That's not possible in the .com namespace. Those domains need to be owned by legal entities, which BitShares DAC is not.