LBRYFoundation/lbry.com
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/LBRYFoundation/lbry.com.git synced 2025-08-31 17:31:26 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Naming FAQ format and editing

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
dmiddle 2017-08-09 20:23:58 -04:00 • committed by Thomas Zarebczan
parent 5ac4c1f194
commit 4f39640821
1 changed files with 23 additions and 9 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

32
content/faq/naming.md
View file

@ -3,15 +3,21 @@ title: How does LBRY naming work? Why don’t you just assign names the same way
category: LBRY 101
order: 5
---
First, since there have been a lot of misconceptions about how LBRY URIs work, **it is absolutely possible to own and control a URI forever**. That is the tl;dr of this post if you don't want to read a bunch of words about how LBRY URIs work.
Assigning names optimally is a difficult problem in centralized systems. It becomes nearly impossible in decentralized ones. Just because we’re all accustomed to certain solutions doesn’t mean they aren’t seriously flawed.
#### The problem:
Let’s look at the internet’s standard domain name system (DNS). DNS is a centralized service run by an organization called ICANN. ICANN grants registrars the ability to lease domain names for 1-year terms. Registrars pay enormous fees to participate in this system, and individuals/companies can end up paying substantial fees to maintain a particular domain. That is to say, ICANN is a pretty lucrative racket for those involved.
Assigning names optimally is a difficult problem in centralized systems. It becomes nearly impossible in decentralized ones. We have to take a unique approach to a pre-existing naming system that has existed in centralized architecture in a decentralized way.
And the results aren’t even that good! Not only are domain names still very awkward (http://www.THENAMEIWANT.somethingelse), but they are highly vulnerable to squatters. Domain name squatting has become an industry unto itself, with speculators viewing it like owning real estate. Unfortunately, as with real estate, the market is opaque and transaction costs are high. Unlike real estate, the scarcity of ICANN domains is basically artificial, depending on a committee to approve new top-level domains (TLDs) at their whim.
Let’s look at the internet’s standard domain name system (DNS). DNS is a centralized service run by an organization called ICANN. ICANN grants registrars the ability to lease domain names for 1-year terms. Registrars pay enormous fees to participate in this system, and individuals and companies can end up paying substantial fees to maintain a particular domain.
So we thought, “what if there were a better way?” Consulting with economists, we devised LBRY’s nameclaim system. LBRY URIs support four types of resolution:
The end product of domain names can be very confusing. Domain names can be very awkward and are highly vulnerable to squatters. Domain name squatting has become an industry unto itself, with speculators viewing it like owning real estate.
#### How naming in LBRY works:
First and foremost
**it is absolutely possible to own and control a URI forever**.
So we thought, “What if there is a better way?” Consulting with economists, we devised LBRY’s nameclaim system. LBRY URIs support four types of resolution:
| Type | Syntax | Resolution |
| --- | --- |
@ -20,9 +26,15 @@ So we thought, “what if there were a better way?” Consulting with economists
| **Channel** | `lbry://<@channel_name>` | A claim containing a public key, the private counterpart is used for signing other name claims. Channel claims can be specified in the uri with the `#` modifier, and the unmodified uri has vanity resolution. |
| **Signed** | `lbry://<@channel_name>/<example>` | The claim to `<example>` in the channel of (signed by) `<@channel_name>`. The channel claim defaults to the vanity resolution, but can be specified with the `#` modifier given before the `/`.
About now you're probably wondering, "what's a claim?". Name claims, as their title would suggest, are made to a human readable name. The claim contains serialized data, which allows it to store a very little bit for a specific purpose, or to point to something else. This format is flexible, allowing support for many use cases to be added. Currently, claims contain encoded channel identities and download streams.
More details on how to publish to premanent, vanity, channel, and signed.
Our bet is that vanity names will be controlled by the people who get the most value out of them – which is almost always the creator of the content. Radiohead would get a lot more value out of lbry://amoonshapedpool than a squatter, pirate, or troll.
What is a claim?</br>
Claims contain encoded channel identities and download streams.
Name claims, as their title would suggest, are made to a human readable name. The claim contains serialized data, which allows it to store a very little bit for a specific purpose, or to point to something else. This format is flexible, allowing support for many use cases to be added. Currently,
We have designed this so that vanity names will be controlled by the people who get the most value out of them. Radiohead would get a lot more value out of lbry://amoonshapedpool than a squatter, pirate, or troll.
Before jumping to conclusions about the system for vanity URLs, here are a few key details:
@ -34,10 +46,12 @@ Before jumping to conclusions about the system for vanity URLs, here are a few k
4. **Names are not like Youtube channels; they’re more like search terms.** However, publishers can use a claim to a name for much the same purpose, with a "channel" claim. The uri for these claims support allow specifying other claims made by that publisher easily, like `lbry://@UCBerkeley/ucb-P7Wjq025f-Q` or `lbry://@oscopelabs/itsadisaster-sd`. Additionally, with the `#<claim_id>` syntax publishers have uris that are permanent and embeddable, where resolution is not subject to the bidding system. The only time these claims cannot be resolved is if the publisher removes the specified claim, the decision is theirs. The bidding system is only meant to get traffic from users trying to “discover” your content through the naming system. Since every comedy video would want to be at lbry://comedy, the nameclaim system allows the name to go to the creator who can make the most revenue off of it.
No doubt it is unlike anything we've seen before on the net. For creators, it's a tradeoff. You might lose a valuable name, but you also don't have to worry about people squatting on the best names. Squatting has plagued projects like Namecoin and is only (poorly) resolved by ICANN at the cost of much expense and centralization.
#### The experiment:
This approach is unlike anything we've seen before on the net. For creators, it's a tradeoff. You might lose a valuable name, but you also don't have to worry about people squatting on the best names. Squatting has plagued projects and we are hopeful that this approach provides a good solution.
Our economic advisor Alex Tabarrok notes:
>“Auctions have many great properties, but the public doesn’t like auctions very much. Although participating in an auction is fun for some; others find it annoying. It requires inputs of time and risk, and no one likes being outbid at the last minute.”
So, the short answer is that we’re aware that this is an experiment within an experiment. We’re trying to solve a very hard problem in a novel way. It’s important to note that LBRY doesn't depend on the naming system, but we're committed to giving it a chance.
We’re aware that this is an experiment within an experiment. We’re trying to solve a very hard problem in a novel way. It’s important to note that LBRY doesn't depend on the naming system but we're committed to giving it a chance.