LBRYFoundation/lbry.com
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/LBRYFoundation/lbry.com.git synced 2025-08-30 08:51:34 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Addressed comments from my original PR

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
dmiddle 2017-08-18 17:27:01 -06:00 • committed by Thomas Zarebczan
parent 4f39640821
commit 950c199334
1 changed files with 14 additions and 16 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

30
content/faq/naming.md
View file

@ -4,20 +4,20 @@ category: LBRY 101
order: 5
---
#### The problem:
#### The problem we're solving:
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.
Assigning names is a difficult problem in centralized systems and it becomes nearly impossible in decentralized ones. We are taking a unique approach to a pre-existing naming system that has existed in centralized architecture in a decentralized way.
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.
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.
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. This isn't our vision for LBRY.
#### 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:
Consulting with economists, we devised LBRY’s nameclaim system. LBRY URIs support four types of resolution:
| Type | Syntax | Resolution |
| --- | --- |
@ -26,29 +26,27 @@ So we thought, “What if there is 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 `/`.
More details on how to publish to premanent, vanity, channel, and signed.
#### What is a claim?</br>
What is a claim?</br>
Claims are vanity names will be controlled by the people who get the most value out of them. For example, Radiohead would get a lot more value out of lbry://amoonshapedpool than a squatter, pirate, or troll.
Claims contain encoded channel identities and download streams.
Claims are a human readable name that contains serialized data, which allows it to store a data for a specific purpose, or to point to something else. Currently claims contain encoded channel identities and download streams. This format is flexible, allowing support for many use cases to be added.
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:
Here are a few key things to takeaway:
1. **Names aren’t bought, only reserved – no credits are lost, only put on deposit.** If you win the auction for a name, your credits are held with that name until you decide to withdraw them (at any time you wish). You aren’t buying the name from anyone and no one profits off of the transfer of names. It’s just a test of who is willing to deposit the most credits toward a name. The only cost is that you can’t spend the credits on content or cash them out while they are reserving a name.
2. **The longer a name is held, the longer the holder has to counterbid.** You don’t just lose the name immediately if a bigger bidder comes along – especially if you’ve held it for awhile. The time to counterbid scales up to ~1 week.
2. **The longer a claim name is held, the longer the holder has to counterbid.** You don’t just lose the name immediately if a bigger bidder comes along – especially if you’ve held it for awhile. The time to counterbid scales up to ~1 week.
3. **Other users can pledge credits to support the nameclaim of a creator they like.** If you claim lbry://bestmovieever and your film lives up to the hype, users may show their support by pledging some credits to make sure you hold onto that name.
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.
4. **Names are not like Youtube channels; they’re more like search terms.** 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 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.
#### The experiment:
For more details on claims, please see https://lbry.io/faq/claimtrie-implementation
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.
#### Experimentation:
This approach is unlike anything we've seen before. 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: