[notfed]

Not disagreeing with anything you're saying here but rather adding the conversation:

> There was a bit of a buzz a few years ago around distributed DNS

DNS is already distributed: records are aggressively cached across the internet. It's globally scalable and it works pretty well. There's security issues with it that we could fix (most of which we could fix without blockchain).

A blockchain-based DNS gives us what? It has the advantage of removing the "admin rights" from name registrars. This definitely sounds desirable but it comes with an obvious, massive burden/baggage: in order to retain those byzantine properties, everyone who wants to look up a DNS record has to have a multi-terabyte blockchain file locally downloaded and verified. The pro doesn't outweigh the con. And delegating to a cache brings us back to where we already are now.

[piaste]

I disagree: delegating to a cache isn't a major problem, when the single source of truth is public and relatively easily accessible. A DNS server censoring or tampering with DNS requests is already trivially detectable now by comparing it to other servers, and it would be even easier to detect when anybody can operate a "full" DNS node with a $50 hard drive and a fiber connection.