pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 9 Jan \ parent \ on: 🔥 🔥 Over 1 BTC irrevocably burned on the Spaces Protocol 🔥 🔥 bitcoin
Namecoin is a much better protocol than anything done here. It is a true attempt at a decentralized protocol (not a spam on some other unrelated chain).
Then Larimer tried with DNS on Bitshares. [edit: BitDNS turned into Namecoin]. Also failed.
Every new blockchain tries this. It always fails.
Decentralized still worthless because nobody is going to use your resolver.
Its this simple.
DNS is a critical security control, and you are weakening that control by allowing any malicious spammer ability to set names.
I call this the "CocaCola" problem. Any DNS system that lets an arbitrary user register 'cocacola.namespace' is fundamentally untrustworthy, and will never be adopted.
Ive seen attempts at alternative dns roots for 25 years. Not a single one works today.
The most used "decentralized dns" is ENS, and that broke when Griffith got pinched. Its worthless as the day it was created. 'Decentralized' lol.
You can send your grandmother Bitcoin in a wallet. Easy.
You never will be able to get your grandmother to resolve decentralized names on her phone (especially in a way that does not open them up to malicious name risk).
Its never going to happen.
Stop trying to make it happen.
THIS
reply
Decentralized still worthless because nobody is going to use your resolver.
No. Every device and webbrowser are going to have built in resolver and everyone is going to use it. It is really that simple.
See what I did? Arbitrary unchecked claims are hardly arguments. We need to wait and see.
not a spam on some other unrelated chain
Bitcoin is REUSABLE proof of work. Here we are just finding more USES for the POW in bitcoin network.
The fact that monetary usecase is the first usecase is just a requirement for self-bootstrapping of the protocol. Once it is bootstrapped its POW is much more general concept that can be applied to other use-cases requiring decentralization.
allowing any malicious spammer ability to set names.
It's not arbitrary. Control over domains is distributed by using POW. Similarly physical control over territories in physical world is distributed also by POW (but in a form of tanks and missiles). It works in bitcoin. It works for physical territories. It also work for names.
I call this the "CocaCola" problem. Any DNS system that lets an arbitrary user register 'cocacola.namespace' is fundamentally untrustworthy, and will never be adopted.
Same logic can be applied to bitcoin and its POW. "Any monetary system where arbitrary user (miner) can decide what transactions are going through is fundamentaly untrustworthy and will never be adopted". And yet you don't seem to have a problem with the same thing in a bitcoin.
Its never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.
It is gonna happen and you being confidently wrong about it not gonna change anything.
I have a policy that I don't engage for more than 3 replies (as a strategy of not wasting my time too much). So from my side it's a EOT. Hope you got something useful out of it!
reply
I wish you luck with your predictions.
reply
Some people didn't learned from NMC failure...
reply
I’ve published my essay on the matter on SN, would appreciate your boost:
#845875
reply