Proposal “Dash-Pay-name-registration-rules“ (Active)Back
| Title: | Changes to Dash Pay name registration rules |
| Owner: | kotbykot |
| One-time payment: | 1 DASH (51 USD) |
| Completed payments: | no payments occurred yet (1 month remaining) |
| Payment start/end: | 2027-01-03 / 2027-02-01 (added on 2026-09-09) |
| Final voting deadline: | in 4 months |
| Votes: | 276 Yes / 8 No / 42 Abstain |
| Will be funded: | No. This proposal needs additional 52 Yes votes to become funded. |
|
Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole): gobject vote-many a5465cdb6caf234cc9b8b776b1e3b60f319367504527e80a669bf41811419901 funding yes Please login or create a new DashCentral account for comfortable one button voting! | |
Proposal description
I propose adding the implementation of changes regarding the name registration process to the roadmap (to take place after the launch of the Virtual Machine and IBC). The current implementation is inconvenient and vulnerable to abuse—a fact I demonstrated quite recently during the voting for the name `kfc.dash`.
For those who haven't been following the situation, here is an explanation of what happened:
The name `kfc.dash` received ≈180 votes a day before the voting ended. This 20-hour lead time was chosen deliberately; the goal was to give staunch supporters of the current system time to react and raise an alarm in the chat. We intentionally allowed that twenty-hour window because we had no interest in the name—in fact, I personally did not request it; otherwise, I would have voted for it just 20 minutes before the voting closed.
This attack exposed the flaws in the existing name registration system. This is a forced measure, given that DCG spent years developing the current mechanism—despite many warnings that the implementation method was a dead end. As always, many of those who raised concerns were accused of lying and were banned from Discord and Telegram (accused FUD). I personally ran into a problem registering my name. Robert took the name "Kot"—simply because he was much more famous than I was (The theory regarding trademarks and real names failed completely).
Masternodes should not be involved in approving names! Names should be distributed via auction, and the proceeds should go into the credit pool and be shared among Evonodes!
Names shouldn't be blocked, either! Anyone should be able to register a name—completely freely. Even a cybersquatter! (In the Web2 world, domain name registrars actually attract cybersquatters, who in turn sell the names to rights holders.)
Vote "yes" if you agree that we should change the system to an auction based system after Smart Contracts
For those who haven't been following the situation, here is an explanation of what happened:
The name `kfc.dash` received ≈180 votes a day before the voting ended. This 20-hour lead time was chosen deliberately; the goal was to give staunch supporters of the current system time to react and raise an alarm in the chat. We intentionally allowed that twenty-hour window because we had no interest in the name—in fact, I personally did not request it; otherwise, I would have voted for it just 20 minutes before the voting closed.
This attack exposed the flaws in the existing name registration system. This is a forced measure, given that DCG spent years developing the current mechanism—despite many warnings that the implementation method was a dead end. As always, many of those who raised concerns were accused of lying and were banned from Discord and Telegram (accused FUD). I personally ran into a problem registering my name. Robert took the name "Kot"—simply because he was much more famous than I was (The theory regarding trademarks and real names failed completely).
Masternodes should not be involved in approving names! Names should be distributed via auction, and the proceeds should go into the credit pool and be shared among Evonodes!
Names shouldn't be blocked, either! Anyone should be able to register a name—completely freely. Even a cybersquatter! (In the Web2 world, domain name registrars actually attract cybersquatters, who in turn sell the names to rights holders.)
Vote "yes" if you agree that we should change the system to an auction based system after Smart Contracts
Show full description ...
Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?
Submit comment
|
No comments so far?
Be the first to start the discussion! |
My username was rejected even though it was extremely generic and fully compliant. Now, my dash wallet is forever stuck with an ugly banner "Error Upgrading". The only possible way to get rid of this ugliness is to tap "Upgrade" which then requires registration of a username, which I refuse. I have intentionally not mentioned dash usernames to anyone because I cannot honestly endorse them. How fickle this system and how sad it has taken this long for anything to be done. Imo the whole username thing should be rebooted, which I doubt will ever happen.
And btw, "username" is probably the wrong word here, I think "persona" would be far better because it openly invites people to have more than one. If people are pushed to think of having ONE username - even if they can technically have more than one - then they risk significant privacy issues as their online identity is mapped across many independent dapps.
For you to not get your username, it must have been a similar case to the above, so shame on you for using your privilege to try to fraud/scam on the Dash network!
The PO is correct, there is a problem with some usernames being "famous", no less than there is just one "Sam" here worthy of such name.
I will agree with the PO that the original distribution of names was flawed, but I think any system would have had flaws. In the end many people were been able to get the name they wanted. I can imagine that with a bidding system trolls would have bid me up on quantum and other names of prominent Dash individuals. You might have been the one few exceptions where the current system did not do well.
In any way, I almost fully support this proposal. I think all the blocking can be done before we go to the auction system, so we get the best of both worlds.
There might be some nuance around blocking because things get tricky with already blocked names, and it needs to be thought through a bit. Maybe there's a "trash can" as a blocking system and people can buy contentious names to throw them in the trash can as a service to the network. I'm not sure... needs more thought.