[EGreg]

I really don't understand how so many people on HN can complain about centralized control, but then so many (other) people are completely against Web3, solutions like Unstoppable Domains are able to let you own a domain and only transfer it if you sign with your key. Why don't more browsers read a Web3-based domain system like Freenames, Unstoppable Domains, ENS, or Filecoin Name Service?

DNS is a federated database, but it is subject to domain seizure etc. at multiple levels. I've seen people complain that their domain operator can just "steal" their domain!

If browsers won't do it, can't someone start a CCTLD (it's only $250K) and then read the blockchain to resolve the DNS records? I realize that this "someone" would be a central point of failure, but alas, that's how the Web currently still works. The best you can do is some sort of "DNS multicast" I think, but it would still be under the control of one company, sadly.

Personally, I'm a bit surprised why the Web hasn't standardized onion links / magnet links / hashes of content / cids / whatever you want to call them. Tor and Beaker Browser have had it for a long time, and Brave too I think. DNS then becomes just a glorified search engine for a small subset of URLs (the ones without a long path / querystring).

[duskwuff]

> can't someone start a CCTLD (it's only $250K)

No, they can't. ccTLDs are associated with countries. There's no process for creating one that doesn't involve having IANA recognize you as a country.

You're probably thinking of the new gTLD process, which has only been open for applications once, for a brief period in 2012. It's not open to new applications, and the process for applicants was much more involved than a single payment.

[dc396]

ICANN says the next round will happen in 2026.

[EGreg]

Do you have more information on this? If you can link to it, that would be great. How much would it cost this time around?

[vasco]

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/next-round

[swores]

Thanks for that link, and to (not-)answer GP's question on price:

> "While the application fee has not been determined, it will be set on a cost-recovery basis. The fee will ensure that the next round of the New gTLD Program is fully funded and does not require funds from ICANN's operating budget. As a point of reference, the application fee for the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program was US$185,000."

From the FAQ page for the next round of gTLD sales, via the link shared above: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announ...

[dkarras]

because like most things blockchains (cl)aim to solve (primarily money and its transfer, but in this case ownership of domain names), those things do not really really have a centralization problem. 99.999% of the people do not, and do not need to worry about getting their domain name seized. cryptobros like to pose centralization as a huge problem where it really isn't so that they can peddle you scamcoins to pump and to feed their gambling addiction. "web3 based domain system" solves something that is at most a nuisance (and at best a necessary evil) by introducing massive problems into the equation, all to do something that isn't really a problem in practice (and it doesn't even do it, you admit there is still centralisation, so what did we gain by introducing all those problems, really?)

[EGreg]

See, this is just dogma that gets repeated on HN. It's obvious to any person who honestly thinks about it, that having a third party in control of your DNS (i.e. what IP addresses it resolves to) means that your entire site can be rugpulled from under you. If it becomes big enough.

For example: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/is-njalla-still-legit.1521...

Now, you can say, "most people don't care, they just have a small-time operation, just find a reputable domain operator who doesn't have a history of screwing people over." But that's exactly the use case for Web3 and blockchains in general. Why do you have to be forced to trust SOMEONE, with something as important as your brand / identity of your entire organization? And, for that matter, why should an entire community have to trust one guy who can change up the site at any time? That's not very secure, and many of you vehemently insist that no alternative should be made available, to anyone, "because scam"! You don't want browsers to even support it!

As your site gets larger and more people rely on it, you don't want to have that major point of failure at any point. I know that some people on HN go so far as to say that banks freezing your money, and ICE seizing your domain name, are very desirable features of the Internet. So, then don't complain about censorship and deplatforming. You can't have it both ways!

This just happened, for instance... ICJ officials are being threatened that their funds will be frozen: https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1781066997666607193

[strogonoff]

Your domain name and the site it points to is not the end goal, what the site represents is.

Your domain name is one of the means to get more people to know about you or to deliver your product. Decreasingly relevant, note, as no one types domain names usually (people search).

As more people know about you via various channels (most centralized one way or the other: curated lists, social platforms, search), takeover of your domain name (or any other channel) becomes less of a risk. If you take Coca-Cola’s or Apple’s or Basecamp’s domain, they will barely feel it. Perhaps Basecamp could feel it, as it probably plays a bigger role in delivery, but I am sure they would have a procedure specifically to manage that risk.

99% of the time, if you run an ordinary %product%, should you worry that it will be you vs. the world and all of your channels are taken over? Currently, I’d say not. I could be wrong.

[EGreg]

You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify why web3 is not needed. Here you literally argue that one’s brand name recognition is irrelevant, and you can be constantly moving domain names with no impact to your bottom line or your community.

That requires more than just an assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[strogonoff]

> Here you literally argue that one’s brand name recognition is irrelevant

You argued that.

I argue the opposite: brand name recognition is what matters.

(And believe me, I am not the only one who makes that point and I certainly am not even remotely smart enough to have come up with it first.)

A domain name is merely one of the many things that may help you reach that recognition. These things evolve; domain names are less meaningful these days—an Instagram username runs circles around one—and all of those things are less critical the more recognition you achieve.

“If Coca-Cola were to lose all of its production-related assets in a disaster, the company would survive. By contrast, if all consumers were to have a sudden lapse of memory and forget everything related to Coca-Cola, the company would go out of business.” If you have your shiny domain name, but no one knows about you, you are as good as dead. If everyone knows about you, and your domain name gets taken over, you can’t really care less.

[EGreg]

Obviously the domain is a large part of the brand.

It's like saying "1800 flowers" can rename itself. Or Jacoby and Myers had a phone number that was all 8's. And then when they split up, they got other numbers like 800-800-8000 but it wasn't the same.

People type in the domain name when they think of chess.com or whatever. You're using examples which are the most ubiquitous companies in the world that spend the most on brand recognition. That's not a great way to support your point!

Consider "basecamp.com" or "hey.com" -- would they do just as well if they had to switch every month to basecamp.nl and basecamp.io ? Probably not. And why should they?

[berkes]

Blockchain only shifts this problem one up.

You keep saying "your website" but any successful website will be "our website". There'll be an organization, company, community behind it. And now "the person(s) with the private keys" can rugpull it. Or do whatever they want.

Yes. Maybe A DAO could solve that. But that means everything, including domain names is in there from the get-go. Which isn't how this works on practice.

Blockchain technology is great for valuable assets owned by individuals. But much less so for groups and organizations that own valuable assets. And valuable domains almost exclusively fall under the latter.

[EGreg]

The whole point is to NOT HAVE “a person with the private keys” to the entire database.

Each participant should be able to take only the actions as themselves, and affect a small part of the network. In aggregate they together effectuate the evolution of the network.

That is exactly the point — that we need blockchain software for entire communities rather than individuals!

Look at https://intercoin.org/applications

[berkes]

How does that help the organisation (community) manage their single domain?

For example: who controls the intercoin.org domain? I'm quite sure it's a combination of trust and hierarchy and as fallback a society with laws and lawyers and law-enforcement.

Which, IMO is "good enough" for nearly all situations.

[EGreg]

As I have already said, with the current DNS system, that’s how it works. You have to trust that your provider won’t screw you over. It’s held together by duct tape and spit.

You know, in every OTHER technology, that’s how it was before we automated things that humans previously did. You may as well have said this about telephone switchboard operators, or tying up the line, until VoIP brought the costs to zero. “Who connects your calls? I’m quite sure paying $1 a minute was good enough for nearly all situations.” Except, when it all got automated and the providers turned into dumb hubs because open protocols eliminated the middleman. Where are these phone providers today? They provide the infrastructure only, and we route around problems. Same with blockchain.

Paying someone exorbitant amounts to “maintain your domain” because it is famous, and a hosting company to “handle spikes in traffic” etc. All that results in the need to extract rents from the ecosystem in ever-more-toxic ways, using toxic forms of capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

But it gets worse than that. The externalities to our society of the profit protive and private ownership of public forums are immense, including widespread depression, tribalism evho cham and national anger reaching a fever pitch. All predictable. Take a look at exactly how it works:

https://rational.app

LAWeekly published an article recently about the steps I and my company have been taking for the several years to fix it:

https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/

Again, Web3 and blockchain is one possible way to do it but the keys to all the solutions are decentralization and open protocols! They remove the middlemen and oligopolies (like phone companies used to be, or the original AOL/MSN walled gardens) by making an alternative system not owned by anybody and with no single points of failure or control by a few people:

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/internet-worldwide-web-ne...

[newaccount74]

Some senator posting vaguely threatening shit on Twitter... yeah, the block chain will definitely fix that /s