DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS

DoB will have to deal with some problems, especially bad actors; people will squat on domains, register typos (fscebook.com) or even bitflips (fabebook.com, b is one bitflip from c). Malware owners will run their C&amp;C servers on domains.<p>Malicious domains will require someone removing them or blocking them even, unless you want the DoB namespace to turn into a cesspool of malware, phishing and nazis. Not something the average person wants.

Yes, DNS should be like the old phone book — published regularly, pick one up anywhere &amp; everywhere, look things up anonymously (granted, authenticity guarantees were somewhat lacking).<p>My question - Sure blockchain can do this, but couldn’t a simpler DHT-based p2p system would work just as well or better? I like the distributed&#x2F;anonymity&#x2F;authenticity, but why is blockchain required?

Handshake is another DNS on blockchain project that&#x27;s taking a different approach — it&#x27;s aiming to decentralize the root zone (TLDs) instead of domains, because the root zone is where the centralization happens.<p>This MIT Tech Review article gives a good overview of Handshake&#x27;s goals: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;s&#x2F;613446&#x2F;the-ambitious-plan-to-make-the-internets-phone-book-more-trustworthy&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.technologyreview.com&#x2F;s&#x2F;613446&#x2F;the-ambitious-plan...</a>

You&#x27;ve reinvented the HOSTS file, which used to be manually updated by John Postel or someone and passed around the internet before DNS was invented.

So, NameCoin again? I think it was the first ever bitcoin fork.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Namecoin" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Namecoin</a>

I don’t get why blockchain is any different for the list of complaints the author highlights.<p>Also, reminds me of the old saying about “now you have two problems”

I&#x27;ll go ahead and note that this doesn&#x27;t require a blockchain. Each TLD is controlled by a single entity. Anything a site would store on a blockchain, they could easily submit to that single entity to be published.

When the DNS blockchain forks, your browser just opens two new tabs instead of one and you get to visit both sites. Simple!

What is the proof? That the domain owner signed it with a certain key? Is that key shared out-of-band? If so why do we even need the blockchain?

Oh wait, you&#x27;re serious. Let me laugh even harder.

The article explains the censorship resistance aspect but not the security. How does Handshake deal with the things Cloudflare does for me? DDoS and WAF protection, at least?

is this not what <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.namecoin.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.namecoin.org</a> does..?

There&#x27;s some interesting work on this going on in W3C, in the Verifiable Claims Working Group [1] and in the newly minted Decentralized Identifier Working Group [2]. I&#x27;m a member of the W3C Credentials Community Group (CCG) [3], which is where those two WGs started.<p>There are also a number of other valuable efforts. Both in other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), such as Decentralized Identity Foundation (DIF) [4], Apache HyperLedger projects like Aries [5], etc. And in working conferences&#x2F;unconferences like Rebooting Web of Trust (RWOT) [6], and Internet Identity Workshop (IIW) [7]. On a tangential note, Unconferences are an interesting concept [8].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;2017&#x2F;vc&#x2F;WG&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;2017&#x2F;vc&#x2F;WG&#x2F;</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;did-wg-charter.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.w3.org&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;did-wg-charter.html</a> [3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;w3c-ccg.github.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;w3c-ccg.github.io&#x2F;</a> [4] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;identity.foundation&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;identity.foundation&#x2F;</a> [5] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hyperledger.org&#x2F;projects&#x2F;aries" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.hyperledger.org&#x2F;projects&#x2F;aries</a> [6] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.weboftrust.info&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.weboftrust.info&#x2F;</a> [7] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;internetidentityworkshop.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;internetidentityworkshop.com&#x2F;</a> [8] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;unconference.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;unconference.net&#x2F;</a>

So every DNS change is stored into the blockchain, forever? Will you have to download terabytes and terabytes of the blockchain in order to serve as a node? Why is that kind of audit history necessary?<p>Why is the solution to every problem &quot;blockchain&quot; these days?

The wave of “x, but on the blockchain!” Patents is going to be amusing and sad to watch.

question—can’t a government actor like china just watch the record for where it points to and just filter that address? doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of this uncensorability?<p>while it may be harder in the US i could legitimately see a mechanism developing to make that a requirement for isps

Correct me if I&#x27;m wrong, but wouldn&#x27;t DNS-on-blockchain make lookups orders of magnitude slower than they are now, especially with many DNS services advertising based on speed?

A lot of blockchain projects coordinate &quot;seed nodes&quot; by storing collections of IP addresses within the DNS records of websites that community members run, because it is an already decentralized enough record<p>This is going full circle

Uh no thank you, I do not wish to synchronise half a terabyte per month to be able to resolve domains.