4 ms·

because like most things blockchains (cl)aim to solve (primarily money and its transfer, but in this case ownership of domain names), those things do not really

because like most things blockchains (cl)aim to solve (primarily money and its transfer, but in this case ownership of domain names), those things do not really really have a centralization problem. 99.999% of the people do not, and do not need to worry about getting their domain name seized. cryptobros like to pose centralization as a huge problem where it really isn't so that they can peddle you scamcoins to pump and to feed their gambling addiction. "web3 based domain system" solves something that is at most a nuisance (and at best a necessary evil) by introducing massive problems into the equation, all to do something that isn't really a problem in practice (and it doesn't even do it, you admit there is still centralisation, so what did we gain by introducing all those problems, really?)

EGreg 2y ago
See, this is just dogma that gets repeated on HN. It's obvious to any person who honestly thinks about it, that having a third party in control of your DNS (i.e. what IP addresses it resolves to) means that your entire site can be rugpulled from under you. If it becomes big enough. For example: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/is-njalla-still-legit.1521208/ https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/is-njalla-still-legit.1521... Now, you can say, "most people don't care, they just have a small-time operation, just find a reputable domain operator who doesn't have a history of screwing people over." But that's exactly the use case for Web3 and blockchains in general. Why do you have to be forced to trust SOMEONE, with something as important as your brand / identity of your entire organization? And, for that matter, why should an entire community have to trust one guy who can change up the site at any time? That's not very secure, and many of you vehemently insist that no alternative should be made available, to anyone, "because scam"! You don't want browsers to even support it! As your site gets larger and more people rely on it, you don't want to have that major point of failure at any point. I know that some people on HN go so far as to say that banks freezing your money, and ICE seizing your domain name, are very desirable features of the Internet. So, then don't complain about censorship and deplatforming. You can't have it both ways! This just happened, for instance... ICJ officials are being threatened that their funds will be frozen: https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1781066997666607193 https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1781066997666607193
- newaccount74 2y ago
  Some senator posting vaguely threatening shit on Twitter... yeah, the block chain will definitely fix that /s
- berkes 2y ago
  Blockchain only shifts this problem one up. You keep saying "your website" but any successful website will be "our website". There'll be an organization, company, community behind it. And now "the person(s) with the private keys" can rugpull it. Or do whatever they want. Yes. Maybe A DAO could solve that. But that means everything, including domain names is in there from the get-go. Which isn't how this works on practice. Blockchain technology is great for valuable assets owned by individuals. But much less so for groups and organizations that own valuable assets. And valuable domains almost exclusively fall under the latter.
  - EGreg 2y ago
    The whole point is to NOT HAVE “a person with the private keys” to the entire database. Each participant should be able to take only the actions as themselves, and affect a small part of the network. In aggregate they together effectuate the evolution of the network. That is exactly the point — that we need blockchain software for entire communities rather than individuals! Look at https://intercoin.org/applications https://intercoin.org/applications
    - berkes 2y ago
      How does that help the organisation (community) manage their single domain? For example: who controls the intercoin.org domain? I'm quite sure it's a combination of trust and hierarchy and as fallback a society with laws and lawyers and law-enforcement. Which, IMO is "good enough" for nearly all situations.
      - EGreg 2y ago
        As I have already said, with the current DNS system, that’s how it works. You have to trust that your provider won’t screw you over. It’s held together by duct tape and spit. You know, in every OTHER technology, that’s how it was before we automated things that humans previously did. You may as well have said this about telephone switchboard operators, or tying up the line, until VoIP brought the costs to zero. “Who connects your calls? I’m quite sure paying $1 a minute was good enough for nearly all situations.” Except, when it all got automated and the providers turned into dumb hubs because open protocols eliminated the middleman. Where are these phone providers today? They provide the infrastructure only, and we route around problems. Same with blockchain. Paying someone exorbitant amounts to “maintain your domain” because it is famous, and a hosting company to “handle spikes in traffic” etc. All that results in the need to extract rents from the ecosystem in ever-more-toxic ways, using toxic forms of capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism But it gets worse than that. The externalities to our society of the profit protive and private ownership of public forums are immense, including widespread depression, tribalism evho cham and national anger reaching a fever pitch. All predictable. Take a look at exactly how it works: https://rational.app https://rational.app LAWeekly published an article recently about the steps I and my company have been taking for the several years to fix it: https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ Again, Web3 and blockchain is one possible way to do it but the keys to all the solutions are decentralization and open protocols! They remove the middlemen and oligopolies (like phone companies used to be, or the original AOL/MSN walled gardens) by making an alternative system not owned by anybody and with no single points of failure or control by a few people: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/internet-worldwide-web-network-domain-name-system-fourteen-people-seven-secret-keys-hackers-icann-a8129766.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/internet-worldwide-web-ne...

EGreg 2y ago

See, this is just dogma that gets repeated on HN. It's obvious to any person who honestly thinks about it, that having a third party in control of your DNS (i.e. what IP addresses it resolves to) means that your entire site can be rugpulled from under you. If it becomes big enough. For example: https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/is-njalla-still-legit.1521208/ https://www.blackhatworld.com/seo/is-njalla-still-legit.1521... Now, you can say, "most people don't care, they just have a small-time operation, just find a reputable domain operator who doesn't have a history of screwing people over." But that's exactly the use case for Web3 and blockchains in general. Why do you have to be forced to trust SOMEONE, with something as important as your brand / identity of your entire organization? And, for that matter, why should an entire community have to trust one guy who can change up the site at any time? That's not very secure, and many of you vehemently insist that no alternative should be made available, to anyone, "because scam"! You don't want browsers to even support it! As your site gets larger and more people rely on it, you don't want to have that major point of failure at any point. I know that some people on HN go so far as to say that banks freezing your money, and ICE seizing your domain name, are very desirable features of the Internet. So, then don't complain about censorship and deplatforming. You can't have it both ways! This just happened, for instance... ICJ officials are being threatened that their funds will be frozen: https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1781066997666607193 https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1781066997666607193

newaccount74 2y ago
Some senator posting vaguely threatening shit on Twitter... yeah, the block chain will definitely fix that /s
berkes 2y ago
Blockchain only shifts this problem one up. You keep saying "your website" but any successful website will be "our website". There'll be an organization, company, community behind it. And now "the person(s) with the private keys" can rugpull it. Or do whatever they want. Yes. Maybe A DAO could solve that. But that means everything, including domain names is in there from the get-go. Which isn't how this works on practice. Blockchain technology is great for valuable assets owned by individuals. But much less so for groups and organizations that own valuable assets. And valuable domains almost exclusively fall under the latter.
- EGreg 2y ago
  The whole point is to NOT HAVE “a person with the private keys” to the entire database. Each participant should be able to take only the actions as themselves, and affect a small part of the network. In aggregate they together effectuate the evolution of the network. That is exactly the point — that we need blockchain software for entire communities rather than individuals! Look at https://intercoin.org/applications https://intercoin.org/applications
  - berkes 2y ago
    How does that help the organisation (community) manage their single domain? For example: who controls the intercoin.org domain? I'm quite sure it's a combination of trust and hierarchy and as fallback a society with laws and lawyers and law-enforcement. Which, IMO is "good enough" for nearly all situations.
    - EGreg 2y ago
      As I have already said, with the current DNS system, that’s how it works. You have to trust that your provider won’t screw you over. It’s held together by duct tape and spit. You know, in every OTHER technology, that’s how it was before we automated things that humans previously did. You may as well have said this about telephone switchboard operators, or tying up the line, until VoIP brought the costs to zero. “Who connects your calls? I’m quite sure paying $1 a minute was good enough for nearly all situations.” Except, when it all got automated and the providers turned into dumb hubs because open protocols eliminated the middleman. Where are these phone providers today? They provide the infrastructure only, and we route around problems. Same with blockchain. Paying someone exorbitant amounts to “maintain your domain” because it is famous, and a hosting company to “handle spikes in traffic” etc. All that results in the need to extract rents from the ecosystem in ever-more-toxic ways, using toxic forms of capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism But it gets worse than that. The externalities to our society of the profit protive and private ownership of public forums are immense, including widespread depression, tribalism evho cham and national anger reaching a fever pitch. All predictable. Take a look at exactly how it works: https://rational.app https://rational.app LAWeekly published an article recently about the steps I and my company have been taking for the several years to fix it: https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ https://www.laweekly.com/restoring-healthy-communities/ Again, Web3 and blockchain is one possible way to do it but the keys to all the solutions are decentralization and open protocols! They remove the middlemen and oligopolies (like phone companies used to be, or the original AOL/MSN walled gardens) by making an alternative system not owned by anybody and with no single points of failure or control by a few people: https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/internet-worldwide-web-network-domain-name-system-fourteen-people-seven-secret-keys-hackers-icann-a8129766.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/internet-worldwide-web-ne...