[jeffk_teh_haxor]

So every DNS change is stored into the blockchain, forever? Will you have to download terabytes and terabytes of the blockchain in order to serve as a node? Why is that kind of audit history necessary?

Why is the solution to every problem "blockchain" these days?

[Kiro]

> Why is the solution to every problem "blockchain" these days?

That is a trope and is no longer true. If you say blockchain is the solution you get laughed at.

[zaarn]

Being laughed at doesn't seem to stop people from trying to solve problems by throwing more blockchain at it.

[annnoo]

From my PoV blockchain can be the solution for a lot of things, but is not suited for most of these problems. It is "just" a technology like any other, but with a focus on trust in decentralized systems. If you need this then blockchain could be a good solution, but this does not mean that it fit your needs in transaction speed etc.

[tinybeagle]

You don’t necessarily need to store DNS changes into the blockchain. The blockchain will only keep the current state and would prune the changes. According to Diode’s blog posts, 20kb of storage is all it needs with BlockQuick, the newly developed light-client protocol.

The point is less about storing the audit history, but more about preventing Man-in-the-Middle attacks and solving the timestamp-certificate chicken-egg problem.

[heythere22]

As I read it, this proposal only stores the keys used for signing in the blockchain. You could use DNSSEC though to archive basically the same thing.

[sundbry]

You'd only need to put the NS records in for each domain.