3 ms·

In what way do you think ENS can be compromised if devs are not 'out of reach'? You're comparing a permissioned mixing service whose authors made it centralized

In what way do you think ENS can be compromised if devs are not 'out of reach'? You're comparing a permissioned mixing service whose authors made it centralized on purpose to extract fees with a decentralized DNS system. There is nobody in charge. There are no master keys. There is no means by which a government can shut it down, short of shutting down the ethereum network itself, which I think they would find to be easier said than done. This is the problem with crypto discourse - people view the guy selling snake oil on the sidewalk outside the gas station on the same level as legitimate infrastructure project that is the combined work product of hundreds of people who aren't trying to scam anyone, just make useful stuff. The only solution to this is being willing to learn about the technology, which is a very unpopular view on HN.

iamnothere 1y ago
Fair enough, but I’m not convinced that a significant number of DAO members, contributors, and token holders couldn’t be identified and pressured into making changes. Such a push may not be successful, as ENS is widely distributed, but that doesn’t mean that the EU wouldn’t try if ENS usage became more common. Even if unsuccessful, this attack could have a chilling effect on uptake in the place where it is most likely to be needed. Additionally, the EU could block purchase of ENS from exchanges. This added friction, though minor, is enough to slow uptake. I look at Monero as an example. It is functional and stable and it does what it claims. Yet hardly anyone uses it, because it has been effectively fenced off through a series of very low hurdles. It is not hard to swap to Monero for privacy, so why don’t more people do it? IMHO ordinary users are much more likely to install a resolver that doesn’t have any connection to cryptocurrency. (The media campaign against crypto has been very effective.) I do think crypto people ought to keep trying to develop their tools: there is some utility in it, and it may be more useful as things evolve. But it’s not a panacea, and the fact that it is “digital money” makes operators legally more vulnerable to attacks and regulation under current laws and legal precedents. Distributed, digital-only, non-monetary, volunteer-run networks like Tor are legally very resilient for now, at least in the West. (That could change, but it hasn’t yet.)

iamnothere 1y ago

Fair enough, but I’m not convinced that a significant number of DAO members, contributors, and token holders couldn’t be identified and pressured into making changes. Such a push may not be successful, as ENS is widely distributed, but that doesn’t mean that the EU wouldn’t try if ENS usage became more common. Even if unsuccessful, this attack could have a chilling effect on uptake in the place where it is most likely to be needed. Additionally, the EU could block purchase of ENS from exchanges. This added friction, though minor, is enough to slow uptake. I look at Monero as an example. It is functional and stable and it does what it claims. Yet hardly anyone uses it, because it has been effectively fenced off through a series of very low hurdles. It is not hard to swap to Monero for privacy, so why don’t more people do it? IMHO ordinary users are much more likely to install a resolver that doesn’t have any connection to cryptocurrency. (The media campaign against crypto has been very effective.) I do think crypto people ought to keep trying to develop their tools: there is some utility in it, and it may be more useful as things evolve. But it’s not a panacea, and the fact that it is “digital money” makes operators legally more vulnerable to attacks and regulation under current laws and legal precedents. Distributed, digital-only, non-monetary, volunteer-run networks like Tor are legally very resilient for now, at least in the West. (That could change, but it hasn’t yet.)