4 ms·
The resolution mechanism is decentralized. Zones are published and resolved through a peer-to-peer mechanism with the goal of preventing censorship and allow fo
by schanzen 5y ago
The resolution mechanism is decentralized. Zones are published and resolved through a peer-to-peer mechanism with the goal of preventing censorship and allow for query/response privacy.
Is the namespace decentralized? That depends on how you use it.
If you use GNS with an ICANN provided root zone configuration (this is an example, there is no such thing atm), then your names will have the same meaning as for other people using this configuratin.
If you build your root zone from scratch, you will have modified the namespace in such a way that names are no longer unique.
If you go full petname system (ie. names are basically treated as your personal address book), the names are no longer unique.
Think about DNS:
If you are sufficiently technically literate, you can run your own root servers and use them. Is DNS at odds with Zookos triange? I would argue: Yes, depending on how you use it. It is just very common to use it with unique global names.
- sreevisakh 5y agoI have experimented with GNS. While DNS is designed to be a tree/hierarchy of zones, GNS appears to be a web of zones with no real notion of a root zone. ICANN-provided zones will at best be just a bootstrap zone - not a root zone. Globally unique names don't seem to be a goal at all. The issue is going to be how to communicate a domain name that resolves identically between sender and receiver. Some sort of relative domain naming will have to be implemented. Perhaps sub domains may have to be resolved against the zone used to access the original information. Or, the address may also specifies the zone pkey against which names have to be resolved. If this could be resolved, the Zooko's triangle may finally be completed, without the need for globally unique names.