abolish dns tbh

@AgathaSorceress technically speaking, is there any reason we can't make an alternative?

@maemachinebroke @AgathaSorceress Petnames might be a good alternative.
There are also blockchain based DNSs but I doubt any of you are into that.

@Hyolobrika @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke
https://www.opennic.org

@bonifartius @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke that's just switching to a different master. might be a better master though

@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 @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

@cjd @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius what are your thoughts on Chia, and Proof of Space and Time more generally?
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 @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...

@cjd @AgathaSorceress @maemachinebroke @bonifartius I think you should look into it (PoST). It seems to have the properties of PoW that you like (fair issuance) but without the downside of massive energy usage.

@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.