[lekevicius]

I think name servers is one of the best applications for a decentralized ledger. It _can_ work without a central party, and I think it might be better without one. Something like .org controversy might not have happened without a central party.

[criddell]

After watching what happened with cryptocurrencies, NFTs, etc... what gives you hope that building on a blockchain will go any better for name servers?

Frankly, considering how critical the name server infrastructure is, I think it's been remarkably reliable and well run. The .org controversy was a big deal, but for the thirty years I've been online those types of problems stand out because they are so rare.

[_8j50]

From a technical perspective it can. But how would you take down domains, resolve disputes like when your domain is taken over by attackers or a lookalike domain is defrauding users that are trying to get to your site. It isn't commercially viable without an authority everyone accepts for name revocation.

[8organicbits]

Some DNS revolvers filter results to protect against malware, malicious sites, or NSFW content. You can always add another layer on top of the blockchain that filters/censors based on your/your company's/your government's wishes.

[_8j50]

Yea but that is opt-in not opt-out. For example there are botnets that use specific domains, they get disrupted until they spread again when a domain or IP is taken down. The longer a credential phish stays up the more people are affected by it as well. If there is no way to ensure by default a domain is inaccessible when revoked it isn't a workable system for commerical applications.

[mhluongo]

You can build decentralized domain name systems with revocation. Many of the people building such things wouldn't be big into adding deplatforming into the base layer, though.

These projects are about a more free internet, not about a more easily controlled internet.

[_8j50]

Completely agree with you on all points and that is why their work will never gain mass adoption. Even DoH struggles to be adopted in corporate and restricted environments.

Everyone wants to start a protocol but no one wants to maintain the network. They want it to run itself. They don't want to separate centralization of authority from centralization of platform/network. The former lets you circumvent blocks if removed and the latter avoids registry's, payments, corporate run internet,etc... you can't have your cake and eat it too.