4 ms·

Obviously the NFT would "keep track of", but you have to be more specific. And changing the organisation is a completely separate question from which database

Obviously the NFT would "keep track of", but you have to be more specific. And changing the organisation is a completely separate question from which database technology they use. IF you just switch from SQL to NFT the organisation will not suddenly become less corrupt, or whatever the issue with them is.

whatshisface 5y ago
If you're asking for the implementation details, there's a group trying to do it right now. You should look them up if you're interested. >IF you just switch from SQL to NFT the organisation will not suddenly become less corrupt, or whatever the issue with them is. It's true that it won't make the managing organization less corrupt - it will make them nonexistent. That's the idea behind decentralized decision-making. The people running the database don't have to have the power to change it or bend the rules: that's what this whole crypto thing is about.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  How would you be able to get rid of the organisation? So many people talk about various crypto use cases but they can almost never explain how it would work. From land deeds to insurance to domain registration to in game assets etc etc, people have all these wonderful ideas. It would be interesting to one day have at least one of these ideas explained.
  - ryan29 5y ago
    It's literally whoever owns the keys listed as the registrant owns the domain. If you lose your keys you lose your domain. You have no recourse if someone squats on your domain, uses a lookalike domain for phishing, steals your domain, etc.. And for the privilege of having a judgement proof blockchain with no oversight you get to buy your domain from an early adopter that's squatting (investing) and you get to pay fees every time you blink. All the crypto bros printed (mined) a bunch of monopoly money (coins), invented assets (NFTs), bought (allocated to themselves) all the assets (NFTs) using their monopoly money (coins), and want us to buy into these crappy systems with real money so they can sell us the assets (NFTs) while still being the landlords (transaction processors) that charge us rent (fees) on everything forever.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      > It's literally whoever owns the keys listed as the registrant owns the domain. Sure, but even so, how is this implemented? Presumably some organisation needs to uphold this connection. Simply "owning" a domain, in the sense that you "own" an NFT, is not very helpful, you need some kind of actual control over it. Presumably a server is needed to forward the domain to your IP, and someone needs to run that server, right?
      - thebean11 5y ago
        There is a smart contract that supports features like domain name resolution and transfers. The data and code needed to resolve the domain to your IP would live on the blockchain, so effectively every node in the network is hosting it. The smart contract could be totally immutable; nobody would have special permissions. The resolution would work by executing some "lookup" smart contract function on a node (you could run your own local node for lookups, or use a public node similar to hitting your ISP's or Google's DNS server). None of this is really cutting edge, it has been possible for a long time now.
        Grustaf 5y ago
        We all understand the first part. Storing information on the blockchain, that's easy. But where almost all use cases fall down is in interfacing with the real world. In this case it sounds like that is solved though. I know very little about the structure of the internet, but it seems you are saying that instead of asking a DNS server, every computer would ask the blockchain to resolve the domain name, correct? But wouldn't that require every single device that connects to the internet to "update its firmware" or something? Or could this decentralised DNS somehow emulate the old fashioned kind?
        thebean11 5y ago
        Right exactly. I think from the perspective of devices (say your laptop) it looks pretty similar to the current system. You give it the IP address of a "DNS server", but now it's hitting an Ethereum node who is doing the DNS lookup. There is danger there that the node could lie about the state of the blockchain, so it does need to be trusted. The paranoid can always run their own node and be 100% sure. I do think you could expose the same interface as traditional DNS but backed by the registrations in the blockchain. There are browsers that will resolve Ethereum Name Service domains today, but I'm not sure how that's implemented (probably lookups on a public ETH node). The important improvements IMO are on the registration, transfer, renting of the names rather than the lookup side which doesn't look dramatically different except that other code running on the blockchain could do the lookups too.

whatshisface 5y ago

If you're asking for the implementation details, there's a group trying to do it right now. You should look them up if you're interested. >IF you just switch from SQL to NFT the organisation will not suddenly become less corrupt, or whatever the issue with them is. It's true that it won't make the managing organization less corrupt - it will make them nonexistent. That's the idea behind decentralized decision-making. The people running the database don't have to have the power to change it or bend the rules: that's what this whole crypto thing is about.

Grustaf 5y ago
How would you be able to get rid of the organisation? So many people talk about various crypto use cases but they can almost never explain how it would work. From land deeds to insurance to domain registration to in game assets etc etc, people have all these wonderful ideas. It would be interesting to one day have at least one of these ideas explained.
- ryan29 5y ago
  It's literally whoever owns the keys listed as the registrant owns the domain. If you lose your keys you lose your domain. You have no recourse if someone squats on your domain, uses a lookalike domain for phishing, steals your domain, etc.. And for the privilege of having a judgement proof blockchain with no oversight you get to buy your domain from an early adopter that's squatting (investing) and you get to pay fees every time you blink. All the crypto bros printed (mined) a bunch of monopoly money (coins), invented assets (NFTs), bought (allocated to themselves) all the assets (NFTs) using their monopoly money (coins), and want us to buy into these crappy systems with real money so they can sell us the assets (NFTs) while still being the landlords (transaction processors) that charge us rent (fees) on everything forever.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    > It's literally whoever owns the keys listed as the registrant owns the domain. Sure, but even so, how is this implemented? Presumably some organisation needs to uphold this connection. Simply "owning" a domain, in the sense that you "own" an NFT, is not very helpful, you need some kind of actual control over it. Presumably a server is needed to forward the domain to your IP, and someone needs to run that server, right?
    - thebean11 5y ago
      There is a smart contract that supports features like domain name resolution and transfers. The data and code needed to resolve the domain to your IP would live on the blockchain, so effectively every node in the network is hosting it. The smart contract could be totally immutable; nobody would have special permissions. The resolution would work by executing some "lookup" smart contract function on a node (you could run your own local node for lookups, or use a public node similar to hitting your ISP's or Google's DNS server). None of this is really cutting edge, it has been possible for a long time now.
      - Grustaf 5y ago
        We all understand the first part. Storing information on the blockchain, that's easy. But where almost all use cases fall down is in interfacing with the real world. In this case it sounds like that is solved though. I know very little about the structure of the internet, but it seems you are saying that instead of asking a DNS server, every computer would ask the blockchain to resolve the domain name, correct? But wouldn't that require every single device that connects to the internet to "update its firmware" or something? Or could this decentralised DNS somehow emulate the old fashioned kind?
        thebean11 5y ago
        Right exactly. I think from the perspective of devices (say your laptop) it looks pretty similar to the current system. You give it the IP address of a "DNS server", but now it's hitting an Ethereum node who is doing the DNS lookup. There is danger there that the node could lie about the state of the blockchain, so it does need to be trusted. The paranoid can always run their own node and be 100% sure. I do think you could expose the same interface as traditional DNS but backed by the registrations in the blockchain. There are browsers that will resolve Ethereum Name Service domains today, but I'm not sure how that's implemented (probably lookups on a public ETH node). The important improvements IMO are on the registration, transfer, renting of the names rather than the lookup side which doesn't look dramatically different except that other code running on the blockchain could do the lookups too.