I have configured my browser to go to news.ycombinator.com when I type "hn" in its URL bar. The domain name could be anything even a b32 hash I wouldn't mind, I would still just type "hn".

Granted, most people do not bother using this feature, but it is also true that most non-technical people don't even bother with typing a URL, they use a search engine as a proxy anyway.

In fact it would be a good idea, ecologically, to have a system that educate its users to give their own nickname to website they visit often and use them rather than performing a search query. Especially if it is as simple as clicking a "bookmark as 'xxxxx'" with xxxxx being the default name of the service/website in your browser, with a TOFU principle :).

Although almost all users just use a search engine. Actually typing in domains is dying (very slowly). I still do it occasionally for things written "in the real world" but this is slowly getting replaced with QR codes.

The last main thing that I use domains for is verification (is this really "google.com"?) but even that is 1. Not effective (yes, I am definitely "goog1e.com") and 2. Mostly replaced by my browser doing the check for me (for example via my password manager which only fills in credentials for the correct domain).

The apparent dichotomy of either using a search engine or typing out the full domain is confusing. What I do 99% of the time is type two or three letters into the address bar and let the rest of the address complete from my browser history. Giving those two or three letters to google to doesn't seem like it would do anything to improve the process, it's just a default that browsers foist on users because Google pays the browser developer for it.

That is how people use domain names, but people are a very small subset of the DNS "customers" - all applications and websites hit DNS quite often.

I stopped using qr codes when I realized how easy it is for someone to put a sticker over an existing code and send me to a phishing site. Certainly, I can do it super cautiously, but it definitely seems like an easy attack vector.

They can also put a sticker over the domain name, and it’s not necessarily going to be clear in the moment if mylocalrestaurant.co is invalid and it should be mylocalrestaurant.com instead.

Nearly all of my QR usage is untrusted links anyways so it doesn't make any difference to me.

> Although almost all users just use a search engine.

This is literally what I'm saying and the main point I'm addressing in the second and third paragraph of the comment you are replying to.

However, you make a very good point with QR code: this is another argument for why the actual domain name is not that important.

Then why do you need a new name system? Just use the IPv6 address.

Discovery, ease of use, vanity, tradition.

I thought we just established that the names in the GNU Name System are not meant to be human readable, and that the human readable names are not "owned" by anyone.

So what is the point?

How does this system facilitate "discovery" when no one can discover your website by the human readable name you would like to assign to it?

It is important to distinguish the technical procedure of resolving a name with the namespace governance.

You could imagine a system where you manage your DNS root zone locally ("hyperlocal") and there is NO consensus on what it contains. The DNS resolution mechanism could support such a concept. It is only the de-facto rule of ICANN over the root zone what makes DNS names globally unique. And IETF/Standards do not allow to diverge from this.

The GNS specification explicitly allows it. That is it. It does not mandate that users must bootstrap their root using fancy hand-picked petnames. In practice, a common set of root zone entries will very likely exists. The specification does not mandate the governance.

There could be a world in which DNS names as we know them today are resolved using the GNS resolution mechanism with no tangible difference to the user.

Why wouldn't they be able to discover your site through the human readable name? They just wouldn't go to a centralized source of truth to find that name, but ask trusted peers for it. IIUC, it's not a huge difference in practice from how things already work, but the technical side allows greater resiliency to attacks from malicious parties.

Yes, and you could apply the DNS governance model to GNS. For example:

Let's say GNS gets traction. Users and implementation could provide a list of start zone mappings which are managed by ICANN and use this as a default. Effectively, this will give users global names. Just like now. .de will be managed by DENIC, .fr will be managed by AFNIC etc.

BUT: GNS is designed to allow to override such a setting. The ICANN root zone may be delegated by the user into the .icann namespace. So, locally, example.com in DNS would become example.com.icann in GNS. Alternatively, the user may also override ANY TLD mapping provided by the ICANN configuration - or individual domains - if needed. For example, if a domain is seized or otherwise censored in DNS.

DNS is just a system whereby you can translate any name to any IP address. Global has nothing to do with it. In fact, by nature DNS is almost always local (you go to your chosen DNS server's IP to get the data). Your DNS server is free to lie to you about the real IP for www.google.com.

The thing that protects you here is TLS and PKI and our agreed-upon global trust system of registrars and certificate authorities that have been built up. DNS itself is just one (very abuse-able) cog in that wheel.

So it's basically useless without adding governance which eliminates the entire point of this project.

No, you get to choose your governance rather than it being chosen for you. That seems like an really important thing when we normally talk about governance.

> No, you get to choose your governance rather than it being chosen for you.

For instance, if you live in China.

That’s not always how DNS is used in practice. There are lots of different configurations where there’s a local portion that represents a non-global name. This isn’t necessarily best practice, mind you, because it can have security implications if the name doesn’t resolve locally but does remotely.

To make this practice work consistently, the .local TLD is specifically reserved for such use cases in mDNS.

Now I should mention, all TLDs should be reserved even if only used locally because of above security implications, but there’s nothing preventing people from abusing DNS in a local setting to resolve names differently than they do remotely.

Think about how the hosts.txt file was originally used before the DNS. It's closer to that (with a lot of extra sophistication and 40+ year learning)

The only thing that needs to be globally recognized are public keys. The distribution of those public-key/identity pairs is a social problem that the existing DNS/PKI does not solve but rather makes worse.

Users anonymously subscribe to root zones that they trust, or act as their own authority.

All decentralized domain systems by definition do not address universality and thus require a change in user behavior. The core idea is a return to pre-internet naming where "Sal's Pizza" refers to a different establishment in different cities.

There are pros and cons to this approach but the point is not to exactly replicate DNS.

Yes, that is the point of DNS, but that is not the point of GNS.