4 ms·
No, you don't. You can have DNS-based aliases to pubkeys, and then people will follow pubkeys and interact with pubkeys, not with the DNS aliases. So if these u
by fiatjaf 5y ago
No, you don't. You can have DNS-based aliases to pubkeys, and then people will follow pubkeys and interact with pubkeys, not with the DNS aliases. So if these users are censored later from the DNS then they still keep their identity, their contacts, their followers etc.
- pseudozach 5y agoYou could even deterministically map pubkeys to handles with something like bip39. it won't be pretty but it will be unique, human-readable and uncensorable.
- webmaven 5y agoThat's kind of like saying that people don't interact with domain names, but with IP addresses. The point of having the mapping of a name to a key is for users to use it in place of the underlying key in their interactions with the system.
- vidarh 5y agoMissing the point, which is that the lookup doesn't need to function or be available for anyone but the person composing the message at the time they compose it. It can be entirely private, entirely public, or a mix. What gets transmitted is the pubkey. Optionally the relay can provide a mapping, which may be globally consistent or entirely based in some private mapping. Users just need a catalog which includes the keys of people they care about. The relays can backfill this information. You have little reason to know mappings for users whose messages you're not seeing, and if the messages are not censored the mappings won't be either.
- fiatjaf 5y agoThe analogy would be valid if IP addresses were permanent and DNS was only consulted once -- and then communication between these two parties was done directly through the IP forever.