Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
Tiberium | on: _for-sale DNS records
(Not quoting the article directly due to HN's auto AI filters)

In "Common mistakes" this article first says not to add this record if you're not actually planning to sell the domain, then says that the record doesn't oblige anyone to do anything, that feels quite weird to me.

zinekeller | parent | next
This probably means that meeting the minimum price does not guarantee that you would be able to buy it due to other (probably opaque) criteria. For example, the seller might not want to sell to you/your company in particular, but is open to other people/companies.
reaperducer | root | parent
Sounds good to me.

I have a particularly valuable domain name that would be perfect for a museum that later opened with the same name.

I'd love to sell or even give it to the museum, but all my offers have been ignored. I don't blame them, since everything on the Internet is a scam these days.

But I won't just put it for sale to the highest bidder. Then it'll end up with a squatter. I'd rather sit on it.

sokoloff | parent | next
I can have something for sale without an obligation to sell it (depending on offer terms, including price).
TZubiri | parent
Interesting, a binding bid might be more useful than this proposed no-op slop.

TLDs like .online actually have a registrar-based dynamic pricing system based on internal rules, like domain size, presence in word lists, plurality, etc... And their distribution of available to taken names is quite good. It's different, which is already good, no one needs yet another TLD with the uncreative allocation system of copying the .com, we need variety, and I feel a binding DNS based offer system might make for a aftermarket-based continuation of the successful .online experiment.

But if the offer is not binding, then it's just an advertisement, no consideration, no contract, unlikely to amount to anything materially different than a 'domain for sale' HTML pages. In fact, if the HTML page has a buy now button, it's effectively an offer that can be accepted just by clicking the buttons and inputting cc info, so it's even better than a non binding DNS record.

Also, let's stop using TXT for everyone, why is everyone such a pussy about actually using record types? Do we really need every tool to be compliant out of the box? What's wrong with forcing vendors that want to be compliant to actually write like 20 lines of code and formally implementing support for the feature?

sokoloff | root | parent
> why is everyone such a p**** about

We can do a lot better than using non-inclusive language like this. There are better ways to express the underlying concept.

TZubiri | root | parent
I can't seem to be able to edit out the swipe.

- such a pussy about actually using record types

+ not bold enough to use actual record types

And I know it's not the core of the issue, but I meant "using TXT records for everything" not "for everyone".