|
|
|
|
|
by rglullis
1464 days ago
|
|
Way to miss the point. ENS being "privately owned" or "having a constitution" only really matters if you care about participating in the governance - which I will admit is silly - or if you want to have have some influence in further developments. But as an user, none of this matters. You can claim an id and no government or "owner" will take it from you. No registrar will give names to squatters to put in marketplaces. Actual ownership is public and transparent. Prices are reasonable. You can now have completely censorship-resistant sites by tying a ENS address with an IPFS page. ENS is already super useful if you care about owning your identities without worrying about intermediaries. |
|
I don't think this is even true.
For one, the service has a public governance process, and it is almost certainly the case that a proposal could be passed through that process which seized ownership of a "domain".
Second, any actual government that this service is operating under the jurisdiction of has the ultimate veto power -- they can order it to take action under the threat of legal charges against their company's principals, or the seizure of their infrastructure. You may see this as a problem, but it isn't a problem which can be solved by software.