i’m open to and seeking CONSTRUCTIVE criticism on this.
i propose we transition from a weak fragmented presence, to a strong consolidated presence.
for those not technically savvy, implementing this is not difficult and wouldn’t take long. the upsides are as exponential as the downsides, which i hope to demonstrate to you here.
some people might prefer cardano coming first then the forward slash from a readability and memorability standpoint.
what’s the difference?
the second list all live under one home: cardano.org
an apt analogy might be a boat with many holes spread out vs. a boat with one hole.
ok. so, why?
on the surface it may seem that i’m advocating for centralisation over decentralisation. nah, .
far from it.
in implementing the proposed model, i believe we would have the upsides of centralisation (security, efficiency etc) without its downsides (agglomeration of power, unaccountability, disincentivisaition etc) enforced by the upsides of decentralisation (distributed authority with incentivisation, transparency, accountability etc)
from a security standpoint the current implementation is poor.
from a communications standpoint the current implementation is poor.
from a security standpoint, the current implementation is quite insecure in a number of dimensions (attack surface and attack vectors).
what do you mean?
perhaps an example can help me illustrate.
once upon a time there live a bad actor. bad actor as their name would suggest had nefarious motivations. and so one day bad actor decides to put into motion one of many schemes and buys cardanostaking.com (a domain name that many would fall for cause the community already is used to this lack of consistency, they would think to themselves subconsciously it’s not like staking is spelt with a one in place of the “i” or cardano with a zero in place of the “o”, the site probably even ssl certified you know a secure “https” site, green padlock and everything).
on it, cardanostaking.com, bad actor proceeds to mimic the typical style of what cardano stuff looks like (easy to do as there’s close to no consistency in branding). bad actor then proceeds to plant misinformation targeting to trick an unaware audience, like say getting people to send ada to a wallet owned/controlled by bad actor. these could even be presented as multiple options, as a list of established and or fake staking pools, only the wallets have been switched. now, keep in mind the amount people would be wanting to use for staking is not a small amount. with such an attack, the attacker would only need to land a few victims for a HUGE payout, and so would be willing to out in the time into the deception.
you can think of attack surface as a tree trunk, and attack vectors as the branches of the tree. the more trees/surface (websites), the more exponential branches/vectors (hacks, social or technical)
with the proposed model, we can better protect from a great number of attacks from surface level attacks like ddos attacks (flooding the servers with automated fake traffic so that it’s overwhelmed, making it drastically unavailable or entirely) protect them more efficiently and effectively, to others such as domain spoofs (slight alterations of a website name that then leads to a website created by the bad actor) drastically limiting the attack surface and as a byproduct the attack vectors within each one of those surfaces. making it a lot harder for attack vectors like social engineering.
as for from a communications standpoint, it’s a bit more self evident. having a single point that people can trust to contribute and consume content is a lot more effective. without it we have problems like those we’ve been experiencing with translation. frustrations stemming from a lack of structure and or prioritisation, not to mention duplicative efforts.
so in a nutshell, that’s the proposal.
the following already comply to this model:
i’ve been giving it some thought for sometime now, recently spoke about it with @Haskell-plus i now thought i’d get a broader perspective on this matter.