abolish dns tbh
@AgathaSorceress technically speaking, is there any reason we can't make an alternative?
There are also blockchain based DNSs but I doubt any of you are into that.
bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke
DNS-the-protocol is a globally distributed database, it doesn't get more decentralized if you want names to be "owned" (which you want). that the root servers are all in the US is unfortunate, but not a technical problem. that you have to buy names with money is also unfortunate, although a compensation for running infrastructure is fair imho. the free-handout mentality is what brought us the current state of the internet. most TLD prices are bullshit though.
if you implement the same thing with a blockchain you'll most likely also have a centralized system, because of the consensus algorithms. see fediverse. additionally it would be amazingly wasteful to run, compared to dns.
DNS is a _really_ good design which solves many hard problems. trying to fix it usually ends up as something like DoH, which is 10 steps backwards (DoT on the other hand is fine, it essentially just adds encryption).
Why do you think a blockchain would necessarily turn out centralised?
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke
because you just have to pour enough resources into it to have the majority.
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @cjd
> Politically it’s centralised though. Everything depends on ICANN.
yes, but if the majority of TLDs would decide they want other root servers ICANN could do shit against that. which is essentially what opennic does.
> What’s the alternative to names being owned? Private addressbooks like I2P has? Private names like in a petnamesystem? (Which I admittedly do not fully understand)
- you want to address something, which only works if everybody agrees on some rules.
- you want names you can memorize, otherwise you could as well just use the ip address (like .onion domains etc.).
i have the strong feeling this is a "pick one" problem.
> But that is not an inherent feature of blockchains.
yes, git is a blockchain and is pretty fast.
the problem is the consensus magic. which is at it's core the same thing as everybody agreeing on the same 13 root servers for DNS.
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius
PoS works for securing a chain, but for issuance it's (at best) a "rich get richer" model. Most of these "green blockchains" are really just tokens. Tokens are a dangerous space, no way to mathematically prove that the token was issued fairly. Easy for founders to slip coins out the back door.
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCBKBEtFmfw
The thing I'm worried about is that the founder of Chia, Bram Cohen, says that a key feature of it is "inherently centralised".
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @cjd if it is addressed at me: i haven't read enough about chia to say anything about it :)
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius
It takes a long time to review a particular project so I generally don't do it, but my immediate reaction is I think that conceptually this type of thing can work because in essence it is a normal hash algorithm like scrypt but with a massive time-memory-tradeoff so as to favor storage on SSDs...
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius
I think this whole energy usage story is a distraction from:
1. Oil companies who mine SHITLOADS of carbon - for example, 3x the total Bitcoin energy usage is expended in gas that is just burned off from oil wells in Russia alone. Not to mention other forms of pollution from petroleum.
2. Lame politicians who can't manage to impose even a few % tax on oil and coal.
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius
When I say "burned off", I mean they literally vent it into the air and light it on fire, because they want the oil from the well and don't care about the gas.
When you consider that scale of carbon emissions, the focus on crypto mining starts to sound a lot like sour grapes.
@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius
Redirecting attention from the lesser (or even questionable) harm to the greater and obvious harm is not whataboutism.
Consider the extreme example of a person smoking a cigarette while telling you the dangers of vaccination, and when you point to the cigarette they shout "WHATABOUTISM!!!!"
@cjd @Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke .. but just pointing at things that are _even worse_ also doesn't help imo :)
besides, at least the primary product oil currently has a use. crypto currency doesn't really have one, save speculation. i can't buy my food with it. the way i see it, it is worse than burning off gas.
cryptomoney isn't the solution, another economical model not based on "get rich quick" would be a solution.
@bonifartius @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke Politically it’s centralised though. Everything depends on ICANN.
What’s the alternative to names being owned? Private addressbooks like I2P has? Private names like in a petnamesystem? (Which I admittedly do not fully understand)
All or most of the blockchain DNSs currently existing are (theoretically) wasteful to run, I agree. But that is not an inherent feature of blockchains. PoS, FBA and PoST exist. Although the first two apparently have problems, ask @cjd.