Handshake will suffer all the same problems as other cryptocurrency-based systems: centralized control in the hands of whoever is the most ruthless at acquiring currency.

Handshake is even worse because it claims to assert control over top-level domains. Most other systems just claim one top-level domain (e.g. .bit) and assert control over that one.

I thought handshake was pretty cool when they handed out millions of dollars to free-software project (although that was a little fishy). But i think this video presentation does a fair job of explaining the problems (or imo non-problems) they try to solve with Handshake (auctions for names) and the actual problem GNS tries to solve (crypto-secure resolution without enumeration/amplification).

Handshake is focused on fixing something that isn't broken to introduce auctions instead of first-come-first-served in the DNS world. I personally don't see any interest in that, but i also don't see much wrong, except of course my clever names are going to be outbid by people with more money :'(.

They handed out DNS-auction-tokens, which are free but have some silly value because of the current crypto bubble.

Algorithmic auctions for names simply don't work. There are bots trying to register basically every conceivable name for the lowest possible fee. Once sold, the name is permanently taken, unless the bot owner decides not to renew it every 2 years. That's why they don't work.

It's the same problem that most cryptocurrencies face: by the time you want something, it's almost guaranteed that someone else already took it. Real-life capitalism also suffers this problem with regards to land.

> They handed out DNS-auction-tokens

Wait, they didn't hand out real money?! Was it even possible for the projects to convert those tokens to real money?!

> That's why they don't work.

Strongly agree!

> Real-life capitalism also suffers this problem with regards to land

The two problems are related but different: land property titles are not auction-based. They're far more expensive than a domain name (and that's a problem that land can even be sold), but it's still a first-come-first-served system. If you had auctions for land, you can be sure only the richest people would own land at all (which is already the case to some extent, but the situation would arguably be worse).

Yes, you can trade the tokens with people who are willing to pay money for the tokens. Same as any cryptocurrency-tokens.

The problem with land titles is very similar to the problems with domain auctions. The problem is unchecked first-come-first-served. Whoever happened to put a fence around that bit of land 300 years ago got to own it. Now 300 years later, we don't get the same privilege because all land in existence was already fenced around. Instead we have to beg someone who got some land from someone who got some land from someone who got some land from someone who got some land from someone who got some land from someone who got some land from someone who fenced it off back at the beginning. And it is the same with most cryptocurrencies, and it will be the same with Handshake names.

> who fenced it off back at the beginning

More like: Whose henchmen ran off the farmers working that land at the beginning, or alternatively declared it their own and started demanding taxes at swordpoint from those farmers.

Thanks for the explanation, i understand your point better. To be clear, i'm also strongly opposed to private property, i just didn't understand that's the point you were trying to make.