3 ms·
Looking at the NUM protocol, this looks a lot like X500 type addressing format glued into a DNS record. Conceptually the idea had legs, but I can't see wholesa
by mattowen_uk 5y ago
Looking at the NUM protocol, this looks a lot like X500 type addressing format glued into a DNS record.
Conceptually the idea had legs, but I can't see wholesale adoption of it. Whilst all (most?) of the records are hosted at Num.net it doesn't meet it's promise of decentralised.
It feels like you need a few big-name companies to stand up and endorse you, and set their own NUM entries on their DNS.
- elliottinvent 5y agoThanks for taking a look. We don't promote NUM as decentralised, but it has that potential with enough independent adoption. We talk about NUM as an alternative to centralised APIs for two reasons: (a) it can be adopted independently; (b) there are no rate limits or restrictions, which we see as the big problems with APIs. I agree, some big endorsements would be good but I don't think that'll drive adoption on the domain side. The point of num.net is that we don't need wholesale adoption on the domain side, we need adoption on the developer side (and by extension users) to drive adoption on the domain side – either by people claiming their records on num.net or publishing independent records.