So from what I can tell, the reason y'all keep pushing for NURIs has to do with the focus on hash-addressing, right? You're trying to get away from the concept

So from what I can tell, the reason y'all keep pushing for NURIs has to do with the focus on hash-addressing, right? You're trying to get away from the concept of domains, which does make sense: a content-addressed folder or blob can live independently of a domain, because it's immutable and self-verifying, so why have domains at all. Here's why I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with the NURIs, though. 1) You're focusing on syntax. The "there is no domain" premise works just as fine with your stage two of `ipfs://{hash}`, so dismantling domains doesnt really justify the NURI change. The path syntax, of `/ipfs/{hash}`, contains functionally the same information. 2) If you still need IPNS, then you still need a concept of domains, so the "there is no domain" premise isn't really accurate. There's the concept of nestability in NURIs that is supposed to increase protocol composition, but I think you're overgeneralizing, at the cost of breaking backwards compatibility. When we looked at using IPFS in Beaker, the NURI was a major problem for us, because we're limited to what Electron/Chrome provides. It's not just API surface either: there's a lot of code in Chromium that makes assumptions around the standard URL syntax. Are you really so sure that nestable references are worth the headache? Because you're gambling the entire IPFS project on it.