An empirical study of Namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design

This is an important topic, but I disagree with their results:

-- Squatting is not a sign of failure of name coin or it being in "disrepair". Despite it's unpopularity (mainly due to "someone got there first!" jealousy) squatting is no different than any other form of homesteading. The indignity that you might have to actually pay for a resource that someone else invested time and effort into developing, does not exist anywhere else. Do you think it's immoral for twitter, Facebook or google to run ads? Do you think it's immoral for them to have their respective domains? Do you think it's immoral for Apple to "Squat" on Apple.com? I mean, that's a hell of a great domain name. Imagine all the orchards and Apple Juice makers who actually make products that are Apples or Apple related who would want that domain? Whether a domino has a website on it does not indicate whether its use is "trivial". Domains are also used for email, FTP and any number of other services. People seem to forget that. You may be a DJ with the name MC Red, but if I have MCRed.namecoin and I'm just using it for email, am I really "squatting"?

Having the vision and wherewithal to register a name early, going thru the hassle of name coin, etc, is not a trivial matter. Therefore, holding a name to sell it is not immoral or unreasonable, or even a sign of failure. These names will be registered by somebody. How many people have a moral claim to the word "mcdonalds"? Just because a restaurant chain has a trademark for its use in food doesn't mean I can't register McDonalds computer company and try to follow gateways business model. And, having done that and met the same fate as gateway, do I lose the rights to that name? No, not really... the names and trademarks are sold in bankruptcy filings all the time.

-- Cloning content or offering content on the traditional DNS as well doesn't mean that this is a "failure"... of course in a minority system where most people don't have name coin access to resolve names, you'll provide a mirror on the open net. That doesn't mean name coin isn't useful or a solution to protect your content from censorship-- if the DoJ steals your .com (like they have been increasingly doing lately) you still have your content accessible from the alternative DNS. That's exactly what name coin is for.

Since their primary goal is to get rid of "squatters", their solutions are not really useful and also serve to undermine the purpose of name coin. (Eg: preventing transfer prevents you from securing a name when your key may have been compromised or will be compromised in the future, for example.)

I believe name coin has failed because the browser makers are not integrating alternative DNS schemes.

This is something we should press for in Chrome and Firefox and maybe then get Safari and Explorer to follow suit.