> It's similar to what ideas 2.1 and 2.2 are in the blog post - a local directory that is maintained and authenticated centrally and then distributed to browser

> It's similar to what ideas 2.1 and 2.2 are in the blog post - a local directory that is maintained and authenticated centrally and then distributed to browsers that perform a central lookup. The downsides are that it is too centralized... It is only centralized for users with the default install, who never go into their address book. I think the real achievement of I2P's name system is that _they have made it easy for users to understand_, and the tight integration in the UX is the main differentiator I see between I2P's approach and any of the approaches in this blog post. While I think Namecoin sounds cool and all, I really hope Tor considers a simpler approach. I think it's a mistake for us to make this into a technical problem, when it's a UX problem. We're never going to get 100% secure names in a trustless environment, so why not focus on making the default pretty secure, and making the system understandable and useable?