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).
@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.
@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.
