It's not going to end. Verisign was allowed to increase the wholesale price to registrars for .COM domains by 7% each year in 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
Because DNS over HTTPS (DoH) is browser based instead of OS bound, it is actually much easier to have browser instances that point to a different DNS root (or multiple DNS root services).
A lot of people have been very negative about browsers adding DoH but they're missing the big picture: We now have a real opportunity to create competitive roots/new DNS.
Browsers really need to look at allowing multiple DoH connections concurrently that resolve different namespaces. I'm legitimately surprised this hasn't happened already.
"Because DNS over HTTPS (DoH) is browser based..."
Is DoH browser-based. Optically, yes. Technically, no. I use it outside the browser every day.
No disagreement with rest of comment. FWIW, I have run own custom root for decades, creating new "TLDs" and "domainnames" as I please, but also I have experimented with a non-DNS naming system just using a proxy. Maybe this sounds too simple, but the thing is, it is just as fast as DNS, maybe even faster. If everyone runs the same proxy software, and we share the list of names, it just works. This is 100% outside the browser. No reliance on ICANN and no reliance on Google/Apple/Mozila/Microsoft/Brave.
> Is DoH browser-based. Optically, yes. Technically, no. I use it outside the browser every day.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Firefox and Chrome have an individual setting for DoH that doesn't depend on the underlying OS's DNS configuration/resolver.
Therefore, you can run multiple instances of either browser (using profiles) that point to different DoH resolvers or are different from the underlying OS.
This is very similar to using TOR in a browser instance but with even lower friction. Currently, the biggest friction is that one profile cannot point to two or more DoH resolvers at the same time, and instead you need two browser profiles for two browser instances that resolve to different endpoints.
What I mean is it looks to the observer that DoH is browser-based. But actually it is more flexible, it's HTTP-based, so any HTTP client, not just web browsers, will work. I wrote a simple HTTP client for this and it works well with most DoH servers. One limitation of all DNS implementations (cf. protocol) is that only one answer can be returned per request. You cannot put two queries in one request and get two answers. You must query one name at a time. With DoH, you can send multiple queries in a stream of HTTP requests (HTTP/1.1 pipelining) and receive all the answers over the same connection. curl, wget, etc., cannot do this thus I wrote a client that can. Currently, I can use over 40 different DoH servers.
I do understand your point, anyone can run a DoH server and could serve "alternate DNS" names. I just wanted to make clear that DoH is not limited to use with the popular browsers. It can be useful outside the browser.
I think the huge amount of domain camping implies that .com could stand to be a whole lot more expensive to hold and do nothing with. If you're using it for something important, $20/yr probably isn't going to break the bank. If anything, I think it should be much more.
13 year old me would disagree. A .co.uk domain at the time was if I recall correctly about £5/year, equivalent to a week's wages from my paper round. A .com was around £12-15/year which I found too expensive. I learned a lot hacking around with DNS, subdomains, etc. and I wouldn't want to price today's kids out of doing the same. Saying that, back then there were only a few TLDs to choose from. I guess if there are still at least _some_ super cheap TLDs available then I probably wouldn't mind if .com in particular got more expensive given it seems to suffer the most from squatting.
There's probably ways to monetize now that aren't trivially bypassed with a line of JavaScript. Think CloudFlare and their app injections. New Namezero could require you to use their ad-injecting/enforcing nameserver.
Whoever said anyone ensures a .com is credible? I don’t think anyone said a .com guarantees credibility. I said, other tlds aren’t as credible, and everyone knows that.
Oh, please. Technology is deflationary. Significant, repeated, above inflation price rises aren't the fault of users: it's the US Government enabling monopoly corruption.
What value do you imagine Verisign provides? Verisign has nothing to do with .com's reputation. Most people have never heard of it. They didn't even run it until the peak of the .com bubble when everyone had already made their associations with .com.
It currently costs me 3x$8.18 a year to renew my personal domain, my parents, and a hobby site. It will cost me $409ea over the next 50 years. $1200 vs $3000 isn’t nothing to me.
That seems like taking it to a logical absurdity. A developer making okay (non-SV) money right now with only cost-of-living adjustments for the next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...) will make over 10 million dollars. $3000 is nothing on that scale.
> next 50 years (assuming they'd work that long...)
I don't think this is reasonable, even if you started working at age 20 at a FAANG, you're not going to work until you're 70.
Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income if you're not exceptionally good. That's assuming you don't burn out.
I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these to move discussions in a certain direction.
> Keep in mind this industry is very ageist, you'd be lucky to even get 30 years of high salary income
In the valley maybe, at a FAANG. In the regular world, esp F500 companies, there are lots of old folks. I work with several developers in their 60s. Could they get Google to hire them? Maybe not. They're still pulling down middle 100s.
> I'm surprised folks still use unrealistic examples such as these
You're referring, I hope, to the original comment that $3000 over 50 years was a deal breaker. I am not the one who thought that a 50 year time horizon made any sense at all for this discussion, I'm just playing along.
Edited: in more detail from thread[0] last year:
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22292348