peeters a day ago

> We use the DNS because most humans are bad at keeping track of long numbers.

I almost feel the need to challenge that these days. While it's absolutely true as far as the original intention went, and is true to a limited amount today, I think the days of most people typing domain names into the location field of their browser is largely over. Google search is the modern DNS when we're talking about that purpose. Today, I think DNS is much more about the permanence of an address, not whether it's memorable.

  • jazzyjackson a day ago

    Agreed that it’s about changing what IP and address resolves to, 32 bit IPs don’t have to be harder to memorize than a phone number. In fact most IP addresses can be represented as a 10 digit decimal notation and last I checked chrome will resolve this “phone number” representation into the traditional quad-octet

    • omni an hour ago

      > most IP addresses can be represented as a 10 digit decimal notation

      Can't all ipv4 addresses be represented this way, since it's equivalent to a 32 bit int?

    • partialrecall 21 hours ago

      During most of the period in which memorizing phone numbers was common, most people weren't memorizing 10 digit numbers. Rather, local calls to your neighbors required you only remember 4 digits when you all shared the same three digit prefix. And if you didn't share a prefix but shared an area code, you only had to memorize 7 digits. For the calls most people were making most of the time, memorizing 4 was typical and 7 was occasional.

      This did begin to change before the rise of phone number storage tech, but it doubtlessly spurred the adoption of that tech.

  • abtinf a day ago

    I agree that the purpose has changed.

    DNS is identity.

    Almost every source of internet identity is either in DNS or is, at root, based on DNS. The only exceptions I can think of are PGP keys and blockchain, and they struggle with workable trust mechanisms.

    You could say registrars and CAs underpin DNS, but they primarily exist to support DNS.

p4bl0 a day ago

In practice, DNS is already sort of not-centralized (even if it would be incorrect to call it decentralized). One can decide to use specific name servers that do not follow ICANN's rules. See for instance the OpenNIC project. They even operate non-standard TLDs.

Using a blockchain has little benefits. And I believe it's energy cost is really not worth it in the current situation.

  • ttjjcc 21 hours ago

    DNS is hierarchical, but that doesn't matter because it's effectively controlled by ICANN and big name registrars. "permissionless" is what we need, but you can only get there through decentralization.

    This is a perfect usecase for blockchain, because we need permissionless writes to a distributed ledger. The energy costs of running the blockchain would likely be equivalent if not less than the current system (what's the energy cost associated with running Godaddy?).

    An alternative would be to scrap the idea of memorable domain names all together, and move toward something like QRcodes + tor like public keys + petnames or similar.

  • DoctorOetker 21 hours ago

    not every block chain needs to be energy intensive. check algorand for example. the blockchain winter is over.

tmikaeld a day ago

I remember this was hot about 3 years ago.

Nothing will happen unless it's integrated into the major browsers. Afaik, no one is planning that.

  • swalsh a day ago

    You wouldn't integrate it in the browsers, but instead you'd probably want it on the OS level.

    • camdenlock a day ago

      Exactly. With all of these proposed DNS replacements, support at the OS level is the first step to true adoption. Perhaps Linux-based OSes would be the places to start...

godelski 20 hours ago

Didn't someone last year do an analysis where they thought Summit (250 PFLOPs) could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin?

My major concern would then be what about Aurora (1ExFLOPs)[1], Frontier (1.5ExFLOPs)[2], and similar computers? If the big draw is to avoid censorship this seems like a big concern. Potentially making us all more vulnerable because someone like China, Russia, or America could decide that they want to spend all those computing resources on an attack. It's not like these machines are a significant portion of the national budget and are really dwarfed by military budgets. We're only talking a few hundred million dollars to build and tens to operate.

I like the idea in principle, but is this worked out?

[0] https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/olcf-resources/compute-systems/sum...

[1] https://aurora.alcf.anl.gov/

[2] https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/frontier/

goofyduck a day ago

This will catch on faster than IPv6...

ktpsns a day ago

I stopped reading when the term "blockchain" arised. (Jokes aside, the paywall made me stopping reading)

> Old and busted: DNS over HTTPS. New hotness: DNS over blockchain https://twitter.com/dobes/status/1164412915648086016

Original quote from https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a3a04f1b

coolspot a day ago

Very similar to Ethereum Name System, down to Vickrey auction method.

skywhopper a day ago

How would blockchain make anything “unstoppable”? Malicious DNS records could still end up in the chain via other attacks. How does such a system handle establishing ownership of a namespace in the first place?

  • m-p-3 21 hours ago

    More like uncensorable, as unless you blocks all the nodes in the blockchain, the ledger will eventually makes its way to those who wants to download it.

equalunique a day ago

Mental note: Do some research later to see how this is different from namecoin.