Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

name claims: allowing soft-fork to increase name reservation period. #301

Closed
3 tasks
kilpatty opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed
3 tasks

Comments

@kilpatty
Copy link
Contributor

I wanted to open an issue to discuss the actual implementation of this change as discussed in #294 and #256. I began implementing this, but wanted to run some design decisions past the community before committing to them.

What needs to be changed:

How we can do this:

  • I was trying to discover an easy way to indicate whether a name has been opened or not. I thought that we might have some luck with height being set on name state (See:
    ns.set(name, height);
    ), but in practice when I was querying name state, height would be reset on a name that was opened, but not bid on (See: https://hnscan.com/name/test15).

My thought process is that it might be easier to add a field to name state similar to claimed. It would simply indicate whether or not this name has been opened before, and then we can use that to validate or invalidate claims (opened) (https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd/blob/master/lib/covenants/namestate.js#L60)

Would love to hear some thoughts on if we think this is a good way of approaching the problem, and if so, I'll push up my PR for more review.

@pinheadmz
Copy link
Member

Why not call chainDB.getNameState(name) and if the answer is === null then it is ok to claim? (Assuming the name is also on the reserved list, etc)

@kilpatty
Copy link
Contributor Author

Dang, that is a good point. For some reason I thought that wasn't exactly possible, but I only thought that due to a bug in hnscan :(. That is much much easier than I thought, so will make that change to my PR now.

@pinheadmz
Copy link
Member

This will not be addressed. If an attacker acquires a gTLD in four years and misbehaves with it, it will be the responsibility of the user / application layer to blacklist the name at that time. Other options will be available such as a community-supported soft fork or -- who knows what the network will look like in 4 years -- maybe we'll be ready for a unique com on Handshake?!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants