looks like those who don't waste their money on #NFTs, are wasting their time being angry about them instead 🤔.

@sofia somewhat, yes, at least I do -- but that's because I care deeply about digital human rights, rights of artists, and access to culture.

All of these are threatened by NFTs, and I notice people either:
1. have no idea about NFTs
2. are very pro and vocal
3. are quite against but not very vocal

End result is that NFT proponents are much more vocal and visible, and are effectively controlling the debate. I find that dangerous.

@rysiek i don't think NFTs can really do that. if they really can, than only as a tiny extension of the plague called intellectual property. i'd wish people were more vocal about _that_ instead.

im my filter bubble, i've never seen a positive mention of them. but i've seen a redfash wanting "all coinbros on the wall" 🙄…

and like technically NFTs aren't really about claiming ownership of artworks, it's more of a solution waiting for a problem.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek This is either incredible satire or a testament to the sad state of NFTs 😂

"guarantees of the uniqueness and long-term value of NFTs"

A license that has to be enforced by a centralized court system can't possibly be reconciled with the core values of blockchains and NFTs.

If their NFT isn't "unique" then it's not nonfungible. And if their decentralized blockchain solution requires a centralized court system to work then it's not decentralized 😂

@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia I think it's interesting because it clearly indicates that some people using NFTs misunderstood what an NFT does and now they're trying to shoehorn NFTs into a solution that satisfies their real need.

But if the problem is solved through copyright, then the NFT component is just a energy wasting buzzword.

@rysiek @rune @sofia NFTs don't always waste energy (see proof of stake) and they are not always a useless buzzword (if domain names were NFTs resolved by a blockchain lookup then that would make them decentralised for a change). NFT 'art' is absolute bullshit though, I agree

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune domain names on any kind of blockchain will lead to pool of names being depleted gradually, as people forget their passwords, lose access their private keys, and so on.

They also (by design) do not provide any possibility of human intervention. Somebody tricks you and steals your domain from you? You're shit out of luck my friend, time to change the name of your company or organization. Nothing can be done.

Unless of course, like with DAO, the developers decide that this is bad…

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 6

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune …and just hard-code certain changes (like in the case of DAO-related ETH hard-fork).

But then, how is this not centralized control? :thaenkin:

Finally, proof-of-stake means whoever gets to control >50% of voting power on the blockchain, controls the blockchain. Money equals power, yet again.

Thanks, I'll take the current (imperfect) DNS system over anything blockchainy.

(full disclosure, I work for the .IS registry; make of it what you will)

@rysiek @sofia @rune
The Ethereum devs were only able to do that with the consent of the nodes. And they weren't 100% successful. Nodes that did not agree, stayed with the old version of the blockchain, and that's the origin of Ethereum Classic.

As for PoS being rule of the rich, well, everything is rule of the rich, including DNS. How much do you have to pay to own a TLD again? I'd also prefer the possible middling centralisation of PoS over the explicit and extreme centralisation of DNS anyday.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune that's a fair view, of course.

My problem is that even with the "extreme centralization" of DNS, there is a way to stop some bad outcomes (remember .org sale that got stopped?).

Meanwhile, if it's blockchain, seller sells buyer buys, and that's it, whether you like it or not.

@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia A blockchain solution would also completely break the very intentional rules laid out for some TLD's.

For example rules that help deal with typo squatting and domain squatting.

The ethos of blockchain is removing regulation, and that ethos is bad.

@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia OTOH you could decentralise DNS somewhat by replacing ICANN with a consortium made up of the national registries, and require a number of root servers at each of them. At least as an outline of a solution, that is.

@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia The point here is, it's theoretically very easy to decentralise DNS, because other than the root maintenance, it's already decentralised - via delegation.

@jens @rune @Hyolobrika @sofia and, spoiler alert, this is kinda sorta where we are now. Almost.

was forced to create certain governance structures and procedures that make it possible to get involved and have a say in their decisions. Plus, with the global scrutiny on them for quite a while now, they are really doing their best to tread lightly.

It's far from perfect, but way better than some blockchain-based techbro controlled contraption that would have curious bugs in its smart contract.

@rysiek @jens @rune @Hyolobrika @sofia and even with ICANN in place there are still independent root servers that serve own TLDs 😱

All it takes is adding one line into your DNS resolver's config and magic happens.

Not to mention that national domains are also not simply ruled by ICANN, these organisations are able to make independent decisions. And thanks to "Too big to fail" a lot can't just shut down by ICANN.

@sheogorath @rysiek @jens @rune @sofia
>these organisations are able to make independent decisions. And thanks to "Too big to fail" a lot can't just shut down by ICANN.

Those independant root servers can clash with each other and if we just pick one that will bring us back to where we started. Blockchains can clash with each other but everyone agreeing on one will not (if it's implemented correctly) cause centralisation.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens Well, let's say ICANN would demand DENIC to get rid of example.de which DENIC refuses, what ICANN could do/try is to remove the entire de TLD from the root servers or put in some legal thingys at DENIC. But it's quite unlikely that ICANN would remove the whole .de TLD. Not only would this cause a gigantic outcry, it would break all trust in ICANN and also open up more legal thingys against ICANN. So basically TLDs are too big to fail.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens Talking about these independent rootservers, yes, they have to arrange with the other ones, but so far, that works quite well. Also you actually can force one or the other root servers for a TLD in the resolver config. So while they technically can clash, your resolver could still fix it.

That brings us to the blockchain example, which, as you said, due to everyone using just one, is actually more centralised than existing DNS? What was the goal again?

@sheogorath @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens The goal is to not have everyone under the thumb of one person or organisation (which is what I meant by decentralisation) AND allow everyone to agree on what domains resolve where (or at least allow it to be predicted easily) (which I am pretty sure is not going to happen if everyone does what you describe).
@rysiek @jens @rune @sofia
>#ICANN was forced to create ...
Tell that to @peter

>curious bugs in [the] smart contract
But the danger of curious bugs running on opaque root servers never crossed your mind.
With a smart contract you can verify that a certain binary (and with reproducible builds, a certain source code file) is running "on the blockchain" (on the mining nodes).

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune @jens well there's only one way I can read that toot. Thanks for that clarity.

@rysiek @sofia @rune @jens Hey, if you get to call us names, we get to call you names. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia Actually, DNS is distributed, and far from being decentralized. A tree is, by essence, hierarchical, and hierarchy is, by essence, opposed to peer systems. One could decentralize one node of the DNS tree, and a branch could be composed of decentralized nodes, but each delegation acts as a bailliwick, both technically and organisationally.

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia That's a lot to unpack.

Definitions of decentralised Vs distributed go back to Baran's 1964 paper ( rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs ), where the main criterion he uses to distinguish distributed systems from decentralised ones is whether the destruction of a node or link affects the availability of nodes (in a nutshell).

Conceptually - in name structure and resolution order of full names - DNS..

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... is not in the slightest distributed. What makes it distributed technically is that at every level in the name hierarchy it's possible to have redundancy, such that destruction of any individual name server does not affect resolution.

Organisationally, it's not distributed, either. Here, we don't even have this kind of redundancy. It's not as if - commonly speaking - any name...

@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... component is managed by multiple legal entities. So I don't really know where the claim comes from that it's distributed.

It's very much decentralised organisationally, though, in that no central entity controls the entire name assignment space.

TLDs at the root are a bit of an exception simply because they're a single root, because the names are hierarchical.

Are we talking about...

@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia I suppose this is indeed a terminology issue. DNS is not decentralized because there is a very clear "center": the root zone, and every domain name acts as the center of their own subdomains. However, callling the DNS centralized would be inaccurate, because TLDs and specifically ccTLDs are owned by various entites or countries, each having their own set of rules, legislations and technical infrastructures.

@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia
Now, is "distributed" the best adjective to describe that topology? I believe this is the case, but I can accept that one would disagree :) Clearly, DNS is a client/server model, and thus, one could argue that the client/server model is by essence not distributed. I would say that it is "distributed enough" :D

@jens @x_cli @rune @rysiek @sofia Isn't it at least theoretically possible for the people who control the root zone to threaten lower down zones with removal from their zone file? I.e. They could threaten a. to remove b.a. to remove c.b.a. and so on indefinitely?

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens
A domain can be "unlinked" by their direct parent and it happens all the time, for political, economic or legal reasons. Pressures from a grand parent are rarer but can still exist, yes. For instance, eu.org is a SLD that is acting as a "second-level registry". I guess they could be pressured to unlink a domain by their parent or risk being unlinked themselves.

@rysiek @sofia @rune ICANN is an org run by humans, and humans can be compromised. Whether it's by being forced by a powerful government who wants to remove criticism of it, paid off by a wealthy person or org, or just by plain old politics. "Governance structures" can't stop those bad outcomes, can they.
@rysiek @sofia @rune That's a fair point. I suppose maybe a petname system is in order (although I don't really understand everything about them).
Or maybe, one could set up an m-of-n multisig wallet with (n-1) friends, and if you lose your private key, m friends can work together to transfer your domains to a new wallet. Maybe with the help of a smart contract, one could make it so that if the owner's key is used, they don't have to get the consent of (m-1) friends, but if it isn't, it becomes m-of-n.

@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune and then somebody will offer a service of being some of those ms, and lo and behold we are back in registry model, just with way more wasted cycles. 😉

Joking, but only slightly.

@rysiek @sofia @rune No, we are not. The difference is that people have the option of relying on their friends or just taking the risk. You got a problem with freedom of choice?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!