3 ms·

Few reasons - The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain - Maintaining custom bl

• cowtools 4y ago
  > -The largest cost is distributed state and the cost writing key-value in global state will be the same for any blockchain Okay but why do it all on the same ledger? All the different applications fighting for the same bandwidth and paying astronomical fees. At the very least, just fork off for each new application like cheapETH (https://cheapeth.org/ https://cheapeth.org/) or something. Token not needed. >- Maintaining custom block producers is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom peer-to-peer network is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom node software is massive overhead >- Maintaining custom block explorer is massive overhead >- Maintaining community and events are massive overhead >- Maintaining learning material and educating developers is massive overhead Maintaining DNS is massive overhead, so it wouldn't kill you to put some work in if you intend to make a solid solution to replace it. Also, documentation and events? Half of what you've listed here is either useless or you also have to do it on etherium anyways so what gives? The only thing you get from etherium is additional bloat. Namecoin works fine and is probably more secure because you don't have to worry about it interacting with "smart" contracts and all sorts of crazy shit. >The total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a decentralised application on a generic blockchain than creating your own blockchain. Hell no it isn't, but that's the narrative that "layer 2" cryptocurrency shills will push.
• rvz 4y ago
  The idea of domains on a blockchain sounds good, but the implementation of many of them and their degrees of 'decentralization' is questionable. ENS is quite frankly a Godaddy-like sub-domain registrar which suffers from the unpredictable gas fee problems on Ethereum as it is implemented on a layer 1 and has centralized key holders for the system and I do not believe that proof-of-stake would be appropriate in being any better than the current system in regards to DNS or domains and have the claims of being censorship resistant. For something that offers sub-domains and is 'decentralized' is the Impervious Registry [0], with it has TLDs anchored on a decentralized root zone, called Handshake [1] which in both cases of the TLD has no central key-holders of the chain. As long as the TLDs are not in the hands of someone else other than yourself, or a bunch of key-holders there is an extremely less chance of the TLDs and domains being censored. Before you say '51% attack', it doesn't apply here in this case, and even if one tried, the domains / TLDs on the chain are unaffected and can't be overridden. [0] https://impervious.domains https://impervious.domains [1] https://handshake.org https://handshake.org