[survirtual]

You can measure users if users also have an identity bound to a key pair, with a mechanism to have attestations to their identity. In other words, the role of a CA shifts to making attestations that a pub key belongs to a unique individual. With that modification, it becomes possible to use their signature towards voting on which namespace operates as a default binding for an address hash.

This mechanism is very feasible when connected to a larger system involving federated identities, and a trust matrix where users decide which authorities they accept for identity validation (or any other attestation). Binding a physical identity to a digital one has a significant number of additional benefits, and it can be done such that anonymity is preserved via sub identities with verified claims.

[Dylan16807]

Now you're farming out to another "larger system" to ensure that the keys are real people.

How does that system ensure things, and why can't that system do domains directly?

> a trust matrix where users decide which authorities they accept for identity validation (or any other attestation)

So if I tell someone my "domain name" I won't know what site they'll actually get because it's calculated per person?

[survirtual]

No one should have ownership of a word. That is an individual choice that should move fluidly with the populace.

With this scheme, there are many ways to enable a stable endpoint that can be shared. But at the base, the addition of a hashed keypair address is introduced which is connected to a recordset controlled by a signed message.

With that, there are a lot of possibilities. Just sharing one of them. While I could outline every little detail, that would be better served in a different format and in the future.

There are going to be a lot of mental shifts required in many different ways. Maybe it will take a generation before those shifts are appropriately executed, I don’t know.

[Dylan16807]

> No one should have ownership of a word. That is an individual choice that should move fluidly with the populace.

The ability to reallocate at some point is fine, but if I'm speaking an address to someone I need to be sure it only goes one place right now and in the near future.

[survirtual]

Then I would say someone needs to make the best “thing” that entrenches their “thing” to a name. For the most desirable names, that would be the only way to maintain stability; constant innovation making something synonymous with the name.

This concept can be extended to support more stable namespaces. It just requires a little thinking. Could be as simple as a numeric queue for a name, like say you want the “search” name. You are the first to associate with it. You might have the permanent address “search.one”. Someone else wants to associate with it. They get “search.two”. This goes on and a million people want it. The millionth gets “search.million”.

These sorts of details have meaning but are irrelevant to the core problems what I’m talking about solves, and the core problems that need fixing: the CA system is inefficient, archaic, and tyrannical. They can be, technologically speaking, easily replaced with far more secure, purposeful, and democratic technological, autonomous systems.

[Dylan16807]

If there is nothing between "search result that can be different for everyone except for the most popular brands" and "permanent number suffix that's probably eight digits long" then that's not a very good system.

And I do think that system fails to defeat zooko's triangle.