Handshake – Decentralized naming and certificate authority
handshake.org> Email became Gmail, usenet became reddit, blog replies became facebook and Medium, pingbacks became twitter, squid became Cloudflare, even gnutella became The Pirate Bay
How is that even remotely related to creating a new domain name service?
Does the author really believe in good faith that the centralization of platforms would somehow be reduced or disappear entirely by introducing a new domain name service?
This will literally not change anything. It's not because Facebook started owning facebook.com that they magically became a dominant platform.
It is worth pointing out the distributed systems tend towards centralization over time.
Keeping things decentralized is always going to be an active effort. Fundamentally decentralized vs centralized is also robustness vs efficiency. Anybody with a short returns horizon that hasn't been burned yet prefers efficiency.
> hasn't been burned yet
The latest basket in which everyone is putting all their eggs is federated login using one of a few giant tech companies (mostly Google) as OIDC providers.
Should I bother saying "I told you so" when these providers start arbitrarily blocking access to peoples' apps for stupid reasons (e.g. policy enforcement bots), abusing login privileges to harvest user data off other platforms (after silently amending their EULAs to give themselves permission to do this), or charging for the right to log into your stuff?
My money is on the last one happening in the next few years. "After January 1st of next year, the use of your Google|Apple|Facebook account to log into third party services will require a subscription..." Why wouldn't they want to collect a tax on every SSO login?
While I doubt major providers are actually abusing login credentials to access third party services (yet?) I'm sure they are gathering all the data they can on who logs into what, from where, and how often. It's a privacy nightmare, but nobody cares about privacy. Nobody will care until they are inconvenienced.
It is also worth pointing out that centralized systems tend to drive people towards wanting decentralization over time, since it's only a matter of time until individuals get burned by the arbitrary whims of the rulers over centralized systems.
I never took such arguments seriously myself until my bank refused service to me without giving me any reason for it. Treating honest customers like criminals is exactly how people start distrusting centralized systems and their untrustworthy authority. In the dns/icann sphere there are also countless factors[0] that are evidence of this, not even talking about the dns hacks[1] or clear cut corruption of icann or censorship attempts.[2]
So it's not only about robustness vs efficiency, but also about additional factors like ownership and freedom + security et cetera.
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/09/website-domain-more...
[1] https://threatpost.com/unprecedented-dns-hijacking-attacks-l...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/ukraine-wants-ru...
> So it's not only about robustness vs efficiency, but also about additional factors like ownership and freedom + security et cetera.
Id argue those are part of centralization vs decentralization
Plenty of systems that look decentralized at first glance really just have human organization as the central failure point. This is a great example of why most cryptocurrency is centralized (centralized development and management)
One can always infinitely shift the goal post and nitpick if one has an axe to grind. The point is aiming for as little or as much decentralization possible to realize certain properties, it's not about having decentralization for the sake of decentralization. it's not a goal but a means to an end. we fundamentally want more ownership, freedom & security.
Priorities are also important: Unrealistic levels of decentralization make no sense before securing survival and increased usage. In addition, we don't need absolutely everything to be decentralized, but merely those components that help us manifest those properties we desire.
I wouldn't expect someone named noname120 to understand the need for a new naming service.
(Just kidding, I totally agree with your point)
Haha you made me laugh!
My nickname comes from a throwaway account that I created when I was 8 years old. By an unfortunate series of events it sticked in :)
The over specification of use case should be a big red flag. Any self-sustaining open and decentralized network capable of hosting a name service will be capable of pushing and storing arbitrary data around - the fact that data can have an owner is core to blockchain, so it's extremely dubious even without digging very deep that Handshake offers something you can't find in a more general platform.
It is also worth noting that the coins behind this project have been mined since February 2020. https://e.hnsfans.com/blocks?page=6517
Particularly for any use case where it is important that any user in all circumstances has access to data, it is really important to avoid centralizing forces present in Bitcoin and Ethereum - they were designed to secure blocks, not to secure open access, as plainly evident by their consensus mechanisms which do nothing explicit to reward the routing of data into the network.
This results in sub-optimal outcomes for data routing, but optimal outcomes for producing hash power or collecting large staking pools. If you are seriously interested in a platform which incentivizes and is based around open access and leverages that to gain better security guarantees (time-stamping, public key cryptography, exchange of value) at scale than Bitcoin or Ethereum, read about Saito and its economic foundations.
Another similar and interesting project, and which is not blockchain-based, is the GNU Name System: https://www.gnunet.org/en/gns.html
Out of the gate from [0], as soon as one tries to install it, they are met with this:
On top of the Linux-focused attitude to this project (GNUnet, GNS, etc) which that is already limiting its usefulness and user friendliness to the average joe, if it is not available on other systems like Windows or macOS how does one even begin to use it?Notice: GNUnet is still undergoing major development. It is largely not yet ready for usage beyond developers.At the very least it should be accessible via a browser. For Handshake that is accessible with the Beacon Browser. [1] Ethereum Name Service (ENS) domains are accessible via Brave Browser, and Beacon Browser [1]. That gives the impression to general users that it actually works.
It's available for macOS via Homebrew. That option isn't even the last one on the list. I don't yet want to, but if I did, I could install this for macOS in minutes.
> a secure, decentralized name system built on top of GNUnet.
https://www.gnunet.org/en/install.html
> It is largely not yet ready for usage beyond developers.
Still in development, not ready for average joe.
I think name servers is one of the best applications for a decentralized ledger. It _can_ work without a central party, and I think it might be better without one. Something like .org controversy might not have happened without a central party.
After watching what happened with cryptocurrencies, NFTs, etc... what gives you hope that building on a blockchain will go any better for name servers?
Frankly, considering how critical the name server infrastructure is, I think it's been remarkably reliable and well run. The .org controversy was a big deal, but for the thirty years I've been online those types of problems stand out because they are so rare.
From a technical perspective it can. But how would you take down domains, resolve disputes like when your domain is taken over by attackers or a lookalike domain is defrauding users that are trying to get to your site. It isn't commercially viable without an authority everyone accepts for name revocation.
Some DNS revolvers filter results to protect against malware, malicious sites, or NSFW content. You can always add another layer on top of the blockchain that filters/censors based on your/your company's/your government's wishes.
Yea but that is opt-in not opt-out. For example there are botnets that use specific domains, they get disrupted until they spread again when a domain or IP is taken down. The longer a credential phish stays up the more people are affected by it as well. If there is no way to ensure by default a domain is inaccessible when revoked it isn't a workable system for commerical applications.
You can build decentralized domain name systems with revocation. Many of the people building such things wouldn't be big into adding deplatforming into the base layer, though.
These projects are about a more free internet, not about a more easily controlled internet.
Completely agree with you on all points and that is why their work will never gain mass adoption. Even DoH struggles to be adopted in corporate and restricted environments.
Everyone wants to start a protocol but no one wants to maintain the network. They want it to run itself. They don't want to separate centralization of authority from centralization of platform/network. The former lets you circumvent blocks if removed and the latter avoids registry's, payments, corporate run internet,etc... you can't have your cake and eat it too.
God why is this blockchain? If I want to decentralize naming then I want to get away from IANA as the exclusive authority top down, but what it means is I want a reputation/selective trust system not some PoW trash.
i.e. "are you my bank?" It's a question I want answered specifically, in a cryptographically secure fashion by my local government well-known authority, and then my bank.
"Are you the local resistance leaders?" is a question I want answered by a chain of signed pseudonyms with set of revocations being published frequently through anonymous channels.
In both cases, details like "how are TLDs assigned?" should ultimately be in my control, with a convention to establish "normal" practice.
One of those use cases shouldn't be wasting my money running GPU miners, and one of them can't.
This is the only rare valid use case and need for a blockchain given the seizure of TLDs like what happened to .org [0] recently.
It's very interesting to see Namecheap, Gateway.io, Encirca, etc use it and its very surprising to see some ICANN TLDs being claimed on Handshake.
I agree.
I'm not very convinced about the upside-downside ratio of this implementation though
But it has the merit of being a blockchain use that isn't complete non-sense.
What do you mean by upside-down ratio?
Whatever happened to Namecoin?
Application-level protocols should not be attempting to secure their own consensus mechanisms - it ties the security of the application to the base token.
If you are seeking decentralized naming and certificate authorities you can look at Ethereum and ENS. Besides the eventual transition to Proof-of-Stake, building an application on top of an existing consensus mechanism means that your application will inherit the security of that blockchain.
It's not possible to make a lightweight ENS resolver that doesn't fully trust the Ethereum node it's using.
True, even though a current "light client" can run on Raspberry Pi, really there should be even lighter clients for validating on-chain state. See [1] which is an area of development.
More salient question than "is blockchain DNS a good idea": How did they get this domain name?
handshake.org doesn't seem like a too rare find. It was unoccupied for a long time and nothing serious seems to be there before: https://web.archive.org/web/20220201000000*/handshake.org
My guess would be it was in the $3-8k range.
I would have the same question if this was .com, but .org is somehow less dense.
If you think your scheme will result in a large return on investment you can spend a gigantic amount of money on a domain name and have it make sense. It’s how you have companies parading around with names like “crypto.com” and buying superbowl advertising.
money
If I could change one thing about root replacement, it would be for a more efficient use of the hierarchical structure of the DNS. The attempt to cram everything into a namespace that is mostly flat is, in my opinion, essentially intractable.
Handshake does use hierarchy like DNS (you can have any levels of subdomains behind the TLD), except it grants you access to the TLD level at affordable price, that is their main selling point. Whereas today you can only be under a TLD like .com or .us for an affordable price.
Good point about DNS.
A very big security problem with current domain certificates is that browsers accept any certificate for any domain, as long as they trust the issuer. There is no concept or notion of who is supposed to have issued the certificate.
Certificate Transparency Logging allows you to view the issuances of certificates.
CAA records provide some extra defence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_Certification_Authority_...).
It’s not perfect, but it’s getting better.
Specifically the purpose of CAA is to enable a subscriber (say, the owner of ycombinator.com) to tell trustworthy Certificate Authorities thanks, but no thanks. It is not a message for anybody else. If you're not a CA you don't need to read CAA records.
For example, say you're Facebook, you've got an arrangement with DigiCert where on top of the Ten Blessed Methods of the Baseline Requirements, DigiCert promises to go exclusively through a six man "Certificate management" team at Facebook for all .facebook.com and .fb.com names. Even if Marketing really wants coca-cola-advert.facebook.com they can't get a certificate without an OK from that six man team. Well, (and something similar really happened years ago) the deal you cut with DigiCert doesn't magically apply to every other CA. The Baseline Requirements do, but not your custom deal, so other CAs don't need to know about your rules and may issue coca-cola-advert.facebook.com certificates to the marketing guys who've set up the coca-cola-advert.facebook.com web site just obeying the Ten Blessed Methods.
CAA records are in the Baseline Requirements, and so Facebook can write a CAA which says "Only DigiCert may issue". And if you look with your preferred DNS querying tool, that is exactly what they did. CAA for facebook.com is 0 issue "digicert.com"
If you posit that there are crooks at some other CA issuing bogus certificates, CAA doesn't stop that. The crooks can ignore such a rule, the same way a crook can ignore the "Employees only" sign on a door. But, we can see what the public CAs are doing, so, if any of them are crooked we can notice that and kick them out. For the most part humans, including those running a CA, can be lazy and incompetent but they aren't malevolent.
Do browsers not check CAA? They could.
The protection for this is in certificate transparency, as Chrome will throw up a warning if a certificate is valid other than it never showing up in the CT logs. See: https://no-sct.badssl.com/
CAA combined with this CT requirement means that businesses serious about issuance can set up a service to watch CT logs and get notified every time a certificate is issued, so any would-be CA attacker would have to be pretty quick with their attack if they wanted to impersonate fb.com, and that CA would be questioned by the CA/B community pretty quickly for breaking CAA policies.
Interesting enough, only Chrome has a warning for this, Chromium and Firefox don't
They shouldn't. CAA controls issuance, but the browser isn't performing issuance.
It's completely allowed (a bit paranoid, but allowed) to set CAA to forbid everybody from issuing except when you are actually getting new certificates.
But now your hypothetical "CAA checking" browser thinks the certificates issued this way aren't valid, because when it visited, hours, weeks or even months later, the CAA record did not allow the certificate it saw.
I think those two are examples of why it's not getting better. People point at these lame kludges and think "well maybe it's secure". But CT doesn't stop attacks and literally nobody looks at it anyway. And nobody uses CAA, and even if they did, it depends on the security of their name servers, the DNS protocol, BGP, and other things, all of which are insecure.
There is simply no way to secure a domain name without having asserted it cryptographically from the people who actually control the domain: the registrar. Only the registrar knows who owns the domain, and what that owner will allow to happen with the domain. A CSR must go through the registrar, and the registrar must pass the request to the human who owns the domain for validation. (This can be automated by the owner for automatic cert renewal.) This puts the power in the hands of the people who really control the domain, rather than a bunch of wonky insecure kludges to kinda-sorta-validate who might control a DNS record or some temporary IP space or an email address or some other nonsense.
It's friggin' 2022. If we land on Mars before we figure out how to control domain names securely, we are truly an incompetent industry.
How would that work? Add another DNS record? It would have to be out of band as the server cannot be trusted (see HPKP), and DNS itself could just as easily be MITMed as an HTTPS request, often even moreso.
That’s what CAA records are for, and the enforcement is happening before it gets to the end user by the various root programs.
Ultimately I suppose it would have to involve some pre-shared key. It could be made tolerable with a browser addon holding entries for critical websites. But maybe the mentioned CAA has already solved this.
For root replacement the biggest thing I would want is better use of the hierarchical nature of DNS. Trying to squeeze everything into mostly flat namespace is imho fundamentally intractable
HS is only for TLDs. After that it's a normal hierarchical DNS.
The problem they'll have is more and more TLDs are colluding with ICANN's, and Handshake chose to sell "TLDs", plus it is a proof of work blockchain.
Dappy has a .d scoping at the top to avoid collisions, POS blockchain behind it, a co-resolution system (IP addresses and root certificates are always co-resolved), and it allows multi-ownership of names.
Worth checking out https://dappy.tech/
You are missing a disclosure: "Disclosure: I'm the CEO/CTO of the project I am advertising"
Did you mean colliding, as in overlapping? Colluding is cooperating in a secret/unlawful way.
Yes I meant colliding (sorry french here), Yes i'm lead developer of dappy project.
> Handshake uses proof-of-work mining
Uh, no thanks. If you insist on using a blockchain at least don't make it proof-of-work. It's 2022, and there are plenty of production-ready non-PoW chains out there already. Please stop killing the planet.
PoW makes sense from a first principles approach [1]. I don't see Handshake growing into a trillion dollar network, so the security budget won't be that big, therefore I don't think it will be very energy intensive. Furthermore, if you calculate the economic impact of DNS hacks, the net impact of a decentralised PoW DNS implementation could even be positive.
Wrt to non-PoW system, so far governance for those chains looks closer to a federation (where a few agents control the majority of the network) than to a really decentralised network. In that sense, a proof-of-stake DNS network wouldn't be that different from the current implementation. If such network ever takes off, I wouldn't be surprised if major ISPs, Cloudfare, Google, and a few other players end up owning the majority of the tokens.
[1] Adam Back's 1997 Hashcash, designed to fight email spam and DDOS attacks was based on PoW.
small PoW networks are prone to takeovers. E.g. one actor decidea to use his asics to take over the network for a few blocks.
This is a solved issue with Merge mining. Here a primer: https://blog.bitmex.com/the-growth-of-bitcoin-merge-mining/
then someone has to mine two blocks?
How are they linked together. E.g. I haven't much luck to mine a bitcoin block and will others put data inside the bitcoin blockchain for me? If it is the other way around there should be some kind of auth?
> It's 2022, and there are plenty of production-ready non-PoW chains out there already.
Yeah. Like Solana, Polygon, Helium, Celo, etc? Which they went down. Why would something that operates like a CA, DNS or TLDs be suitable on those 'production-ready' chains? PoW makes sense for this use case.
> Please stop killing the planet.
I agree. I'd rather have something useful burning the planet and is an improvement than something that is burning the planet for the benefit of more surveillance, censorship and spyware (Deep Learning, Machine Learning systems on user data) or something that is not useful at all to the current system. (Bitcoin)
So perhaps we also should look at stopping running broken machine learning / deep learning models continuously on many data centers for 10+ years which that is also incinerating the planet.
> I'd rather have something useful burning the planet...
Except that the examples I listed after more than 10 years of operation, especially the use of Deep Learning and training on tons of new data, have NO efficient alternatives, and still require tons of data centers to the point where some of them literally caught fire and their use is worse for society. Unless you want more surveillance, spyware, etc who would be happy with that?
The end result to all that wasteful training is that it doesn't work or it gets tricked or confused by junk input. Proving to be a waste of energy, time, money and the re-training, fine-tuning process has to be done repeatedly if there is an error, or everyday on new data.
Either way, it is pointless to outline a comment as 'This is a false dilemma' without countering my claims as I have both recognised the wastefulness of decentralized blockchains like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Doge, that are much worse for their intended purpose (payments) etc and using tons of data centers for Deep Learning / Machine Learning training, re-training, fine-tuning, etc everyday on user data which benefits surveillance capitalism, spyware uses etc which that is also worse for everyone.
> Either way, it is pointless to outline a comment as 'This is a false dilemma' without countering my claims...
It's pointless to counter a fallacy.
Trying to pretend machine learning and Bitcoin are of equal uselessness is dishonest.
> Trying to pretend machine learning and Bitcoin are of equal uselessness is dishonest.
As soon as that deep learning or machine learning model gets confused or attacked with erroneous / junk input, garbage noise or performs badly on new data, that model is useless. What do you do next? More training, re-training, fine tuning? That problem is unavoidable and evergreen.
The end result is the same and either way, that is used for surveillance, spyware on user data which not only that is a waste of energy, CO2 and time, that is worse for both for society and the planet and the methods to improve these models have been known to be inefficient and have not changed for 10+ years and always require tons of data centers. On that, Bitcoin is the same with mining. There is no benefit or useful improvement for it in the current system for payments (it's original intended purpose) and it also burns up the planet with PoW.
No idea why you had to deliberately ignore deep learning as that is also part of the planet incinerating problem.
> Yeah. Like Solana, Polygon, Helium, Celo, etc? Which they went down
Funny how you forgot to mention Cosmos [0] which is one of the most prominent PoS blockchain, in production since march 2019, and never went down ...
> Yeah. Like Solana, Polygon, Helium, Celo, etc? Which they went down
I do know Solana has had downtime and Celo not even being a cryptocurrency but something centralized, but when did Polygon have any downtime? I have some automation happening over the Polygon network and never encountered any downtime, when did this happen?
> but when did Polygon have any downtime?
It happened recently this year. [0]
[0] https://cryptoslate.com/polygon-matic-suffers-network-outage...
Cardano/Ada never went down as well.
> So perhaps we also should look at stopping running broken machine learning / deep learning models continuously on many data centers for 10+ years which that is also incinerating the planet.
That's Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
That's a Nonargument https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonargument .
Giving examples of technologies that can also be considered "a waste of energy" is a valid argument. Why is using energy playing graphics intensive games with high-end graphics cards not considered a "waste of energy"? It's a value judgment that lacks perspective. Dismissing some technology for its energy usage without providing a better alternative with similar or better properties is nescient.
Some people at least try to provide "alternatives", but they don't have better properties or completely ignore what the technology was even trying to accomplish.
Just tax everything the amount it costs to clean up the pollution it causes, then you can do whatever you want without a problem
How do you calculate that price? How would you enforce it globally?
No it isn't. I already agreed that PoW is burning up the planet especially with the uselessness of blockchains like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, Dogecoin, that don't improve on the current system when used and thus have no use case. So that isn't 'whataboutism'.
Nice try though.
Indeed. Proof-of-work is the "what if we put some CFCs in our leaded petrol" level of technological disaster generation.
No, PoW is still the most secure out there. This is an important topic and theres nothing wrong with using energy for this.
I can't agree with this more.
If I remember correctly, Handshake came into life somewhere around 2016, and was forked from Bitcoin, hence the reliance on PoW. Seems unlikely to change at this point.
If you'd rather want to use something with PoS, then Ethereum Name Service (https://ens.domains/) is probably your best bet as Ethereum is moving to PoS shortly and is a widely used chain.
> Handshake is a UTXO-based blockchain protocol which manages the registration, renewal and transfer of DNS top-level domains (TLDs).
> The full node daemon, hsd, is written in Javascript and is a fork of bcoin.
Personally, not the future I’m looking for.
Sadly namecheap bought into this, so it’s being forced down the throats of people who don’t quite realize that the domains they can buy on the service can not, and will not ever be usable. It’s pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers that this is just yet another cryptocurrency scheme designed to fleece as many people as possible.
This is very unfair to namecheap:
1. The search bar on their homepage returns no handbrake results
2. To get to those results in the first place you have to click on a 'Handbrake' tab (leaving the 'Domains' tab)
3. The search results link to an info page that clearly states "It's also important to note that handshake domains do not resolve in regular browsers without additional setup."
For the record, I think Handbrake is a doomed project and a bad investment for Namecheap, but I don't think that means we can just accuse Namecheap of "forcing it down the throats of people".
> The search bar on their homepage returns no handbrake results
That's sadly not correct.
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?doma...
For example using "beast mode" on the front page search, a good portion of the domains are "handshake" entries with only a tiny little (i) button to distinguish them from actual domain names which could be used in the real world.
I can add them to my cart with no other mention that the product I am buying is a sham, I can even add a SSL certificate along with my purchase- which can't actually be issued because it's not a real domain name.
> "It's also important to note that handshake domains do not resolve in regular browsers without additional setup."
This feels like an incredible understatement. They will never be accessible by anybody who doesn't install software explicitly with that goal, they will never be able to receive email, nobody is going to issue SSL certificates for them.
> For example using "beast mode" on the front page search, a good portion of the domains are "handshake" entries with only a tiny little (i) button to distinguish them from actual domain names which could be used in the real world.
I also see a "pill" / "tab" that says "Handshake" and hovering the "tiny little (i)" kindly informs you what Handshake means.
https://i.imgur.com/kr0465o.png
Do you not see the same design as me maybe?
https://i.imgur.com/FqG1Mjj.png
Three of the four domains here are on sale, all have a pale blue pill with white text, two have a (i) logo, one of them is nonfunctional and can not be used as a domain name in the way that a customer would typically expect. It's an incredibly deceptive listing in the wider context, nothing about the way it is presented would make you even consider that what is being sold in that line is valueless for a normal use case of buying a domain name.
Why would you say sadly? This is right up Namecheap's alley.
Tip: find a phishing domain -- either SMS or via some search -- and check the WHOIS. It's always the same registrar. Then try to report it and see how it goes.
Have the complete opposite experience here - we (OBS Studio team) often have malware copies of our website set up by scammers, and Namecheap are the most responsive by far at suspending the domains - usually in under an hour (!).
The person who forced themselves into ownership of freenode is closely associated with this dumpster fire.
How did you determine that? I’ve dug through somewhat superficially on the website and github repo and struggled to find anything.
Merely supporting it or in leadership role? Either way...
> themselves into ownership of freenode is closely associated
Wonderful. Using a guilt by association to discredit a project due to someone else's involvement rather than critiquing the technology and its goals.
Facebook have been involved with allowing the spread of misinformation, hate crimes, etc and have built systems that use Rust to aid this and are also a platinum member (Amongst other surveillance big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc) involved with funding the Rust Foundation.
Given that deep association, does that mean you should stop learning and using Rust?
By close association, I mean the co-founder of Handshake is also responsible for the downfall of freenode, personally. Even disregarding the hostile takeover of a community, it was rasengans ineptitude that fueled the massive exodus.
A very similarly named startup that seeks to help college students find their first opportunities
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/handshake-2
Meanwhile, the claims on this website:
> Email became Gmail, usenet became reddit, blog replies became facebook and Medium, pingbacks became twitter, squid became Cloudflare, even gnutella became The Pirate Bay
While not even accurate, these centralized services became popular and synonymous with their underlyings due to convenience and benefits (eg gmail offering massive storage when it first rolled out; FB deploying its newsfeed which other social media platforms didn’t have at the time; etc)
> True decentralization, no official singular Foundation, Committee, Corporation, or entities in permanent unitary control of the protocol.
And what happens when something inevitably goes wrong without any kind of oversight? Who can course-correct if it has succumbed to say a 51% attack
> Economic incentives enable decentralized agreements to form via a transparent name auction process.
And so beholden to the same hyperfinancialization principles we see now—bid higher to get your blocks mined quicker. Not to mention the 700% spike in fees we saw not long ago.
Add in proof of work and you’ve now got potentially very long waiting times as well, further incentivizing the pay for speed mentality
Mostly just shows that open systems require more resources to develop at as rapid a pace as closed systems.
Email/Usenet were fossilised the day they were born pretty much, we're still living with stupid fixed width lines of text in 2022, people just gave up on replying correctly, and no one could fix usenet spam.
Web apps have instant new version deployment, but are centralised, automatically updating docker containers are probably a half decent solution to a federated network.
The most popular website creation system is Wordpress though, that's mostly open and decentralised
Why you all dissing HNS? Shit's awesome