If I have to, I will port ENS to Ubiq blockchain and make a .fedi TLD. Then it will be trustless and cheap.

@Moon I think what ENS really needs right now is traditional DNS entries like A, AAA, and CNAME.

@Moon Focusing on IPFS and Tor only is trying to solve too many problems at once. If we just solved the domain name problem, it would help increase adoption of blockchain domains. Then we could use them to solve the IP address problem.

@alex @Moon The only problem is email servers, XMPP servers, fedi instances, etc having to configure their DNS settings to federate with the servers on non-ICANN domains.

@xianc78 @Moon The fact Brave already supports ENS by default is extremely promising. We can just tell users “use Brave to access our site.” Win-win. If they’ve already solved it there, we can solve it on the server level.

But we need to be able to point ENS at an IP address for any of this to work.

@alex @xianc78 @Moon ENS has centralized governance so if it ever gains wide adoption it will likely suffer from censorship too. Also Brave browser doesn't run local ethereum node, it just uses eth.link gateway from Cloudflare. So it's even less censorship resistant than DNS but much more fragile.
I think if you want full control over your name, there's no real alternative to public-key based name systems like .onion

@silverpill @Moon @xianc78 Good points but these are things that can be fixed.

@alex @Moon @xianc78 I guess in a few years we'll finally get working light clients for ethereum. But how would you fix governance? I think it's inevitable that ENS DAO will be captured by VCs and twitter celebrities

@silverpill @Moon @xianc78 We can fork ENS and prevent the contract from being replaced. It’s an option. We don’t have that option on DNS. These are solvable problems. DNS can’t be fixed.

@alex @Moon @xianc78 We can fork ENS but we can't fork all the infrastructure built around it. I'm not arguing that DNS can be fixed. It's broken for exactly the same reason, you can't just fork ICANN and hope that everyone will follow.
On the other hand, public-key based identities do not require formal governance, they are usually free to use and anonymous. And human readability issue can be solved with a petname system (like a phonebook) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petname

@silverpill @Moon @xianc78 I get your point, but blockchain domains are 10x better than the ICANN. We have to advance, and this is the path.

There’s currently no path for key based identities. There could be, but there isn’t yet.

@alex @silverpill @Moon @xianc78 how does one stop someone from mass registering with these blockchain name services? With ICANN there are registration fees to stymie that behavior.

@NEETzsche @alex @silverpill @xianc78 there is a registration fee. there is a governance board that determines that fee. it really only exists to prevent soam

@Moon @xianc78 @alex @NEETzsche @silverpill why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? #Namecoin solved this more than a decade ago. No bloated blockchain, it just does one thing and does it right.