It was both.biolizard89 wrote:(Are you replying to my previous message or making a new point? I can't tell.)virtual_master wrote:I have spoken with somebody in RL and he was also convinced that d/ should resolve all cases.
That means that if you registered a d/example namespace entry you control with it all associated domains ?
(like example.bit, example.tor, example.i2p, example.gnu, example.ipv6, ...)
Wouldn't be to much for 0.02 NMC ?
I think we would need a new fee model with this.
(with dynamically rising network fee for more asked domains)
OK. You convinced me for a single d/ domain namespace.biolizard89 wrote: If you register a d/ name, you would be controlling multiple resolvers, but you would be making a guarantee that all resolvers will point to the same content. This is one reason to use .bit for all resolvers (because if I change settings to make I2P preferred over Tor resolution when it was the opposite previously, the .bit domain should load the same content, just over a different resolver). Same thing as using multiple IPv4 addresses in a domain, or both IPv4 and IPv6 addreses.
Thanks for your argumentation.
But with different domain resolvers in the same namespace as domob proposed and all found this as a good solution.
I agree. We will discuss this point in another thread.biolizard89 wrote: I do think fees need to be reworked because 0.02 NMC is a ridiculously low price for a domain, but I don't think multiple resolvers have much to do with the fee issue.
