> Either way you need to have a kind of central authority, or at least trusted third parties. Not everyone needs to run a node, and not everyone could, but it

> Either way you need to have a kind of central authority, or at least trusted third parties. Not everyone needs to run a node, and not everyone could, but it is totally feasible for an individual to run their own if they decide they can't trust anyone else for whatever reason. Especially if you were running a node specifically for the purpose of name resolution you could discard the vast, vast majority of data on the Ethereum blockchain (for example). > what if someone gets a name and we as a society (i.e., justice, whatever) decides that they should not be in control of it? [...] and that's a problem. No, that is a feature of a decentralized system. Individual node operators would be able to decide whether or not to serve particular records, but censorship resistance is one of the core features of blockchains in the first place. > What if a private key is lost, the associated names are gone forever? The association wouldn't be gone, it would just be unchangeable until it eventually expires. This is a known tradeoff if you are choosing ENS over traditional domain name registration. > What if your private key is leaked by mistake and someone hostile take control of your name? As opposed to today where someone hostile, like for instance the Afghani government (The Taliban), can seize your domain for any reason or no reason at all? --- I think we just have a fundamental disagreement about what types of features and use cases a name resolution system should have. That's completely fine, you're entitled to your own believes. You can use the system that most closely resembles your beliefs, and I'll use the one that most closely resembles mine. Fortunately for us different name resolution system can peacefully coexist due to the nature of name mappings. At least for now, none that I know of collide in namespace.