Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AnthonyMouse 1652 days ago
Right. Even putting aside blockchain-based systems, you can have systems without a dictator because they're based on voting.

Suppose the root is a set of public keys, each with a top level domain. Adding one requires a supermajority of the others to agree. Removing one is impossible; it can sign its own successor and that's it. You now have a federated system with no single chokepoint.

2 comments

I'd say blockchain naming and the system you describe are still both centralized. The authorities are distributed, but they're still collectively responsible for deciding on a single coherent root.

Compare with systems that don't revolve around making any coherent global view, like Petnames. In the context of Zooko's triangle - do the human readable name lookup once as part of a manual process, and then persist the relationship as decentralized/secure but not human-readable.

> because they're based on voting

All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The best methods to protect against Sybil attacks are centralized. The not-best methods use proof of work, which has extreme downsides and only makes Sybil attacks expensive, not impossible.

> All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks.

The voting system is the protection against Sybil attacks. A successful Sybil attack would allow you to add your own TLDs, but if you can't already do that then you can't do a Sybil attack.

The real issue with that kind of system is deciding on the initial group of voters.

How do the existing group of voters prove to themselves that the to-be-added voter is actually a unique person, and not a sockpuppet? If it’s something like a government ID, then they’ve outsourced the Sybil protection, and not actually gotten rid of it.
What stops me adding 10000000000 fake users and having them all vote for my new TLD?
Sybil attacks aren't possible in what was just described though since it requires a vote to create a new voter.