4 ms·
In practice, DNS is already sort of not-centralized (even if it would be incorrect to call it decentralized). One can decide to use specific name servers that d
by p4bl0 7y ago
In practice, DNS is already sort of not-centralized (even if it would be incorrect to call it decentralized). One can decide to use specific name servers that do not follow ICANN's rules. See for instance the OpenNIC project. They even operate non-standard TLDs.
Using a blockchain has little benefits. And I believe it's energy cost is really not worth it in the current situation.
- DoctorOetker 7y agonot every block chain needs to be energy intensive. check algorand for example. the blockchain winter is over.
- ttjjcc 7y agoDNS is hierarchical, but that doesn't matter because it's effectively controlled by ICANN and big name registrars. "permissionless" is what we need, but you can only get there through decentralization. This is a perfect usecase for blockchain, because we need permissionless writes to a distributed ledger. The energy costs of running the blockchain would likely be equivalent if not less than the current system (what's the energy cost associated with running Godaddy?). An alternative would be to scrap the idea of memorable domain names all together, and move toward something like QRcodes + tor like public keys + petnames or similar.