DNS isn’t centralized; it’s federated. I mean, just because there’s an ISO and a UN does not mean there is a single world government.

Yes, but in practice the whole system would be broken if different countries had different records for the same domain. With blockchain, you can enforce consistency.

Or a chain of DNSSEC signatures, originating at the root.

That's the most centralized system imaginable.

Again: Federated, not centralized. An ISO, Interpol or a UN does not constitude a world government. Or are you one of those UN troops conspiracy nuts?

Why is it only centralization if it's done by a world government?

I think you misunderstood me; I was making an analogy.

All systems have some form of common ground or central point. That does not make every system “centralized”. With the example given upthread, blockchain, there is the development team, or standards organization, which is a central controlling point of the blockchain. Does this make all blockchains centralized? No. In the same way, a common root zone does not make the DNS centralized.

Both suggestions ("blockchain" and "DNSSEC") are nonsensical here.

As you note, "blockchain" is a technological concept. Implementations of a blockchain have varying qualities, some of them are centrally managed by an entity, some of them are based on participant consensus in varying degrees. So suggesting "blockchain" be used to solve this problem is a bit like suggesting "nails" be used to build a house. Sure, it's a component you could use, but you haven't really nailed down any specifics about how the house is going to be structured.

DNSSEC, by contrast, is 100% a centralized PKI system. Leaf records are signed up and up and up, and the root of it all is signatures on the root zones by the operators of those zones. Having a hierarchical structure where an entity at the top of the pyramid signs off on the records beneath is about as canonically centralized as something could be.

The suggestion to use “blockchain” came from user jongjong, not me. I therefore cannot elaborate on it.

> DNSSEC, by contrast, is 100% a centralized PKI system.

Again, my point is that just because something can have, or has, a central point, does not mean it is “centralized”. The DNSSEC root cannot override individual DNS records on the domain or subdomain levels. DNS (and DNSSEC) is federated; i.e. it delegates absolute authority over sections to others, which can in turn delegate authority for domains to yet other, which can in turn delegate authority over subdomains, and so on.

To make an analogy again: The US federal government does not possess absolute authority over the states. The UN does not possess absolute authority over its member nations (or other nations). Interpol does not possess absolute authority over every police force in the world. And so on.

I had heard of ENS but yesterday I discovered that SNS is more affordable so I tried it out. now you can type gushinggranny.sol into Brave browser and it redirects to my peertube instance. SNS has A records too but I have not tried it yet. I am grateful to see that Brave browser is so forward thinking to support a decentralized DNS right out of the box and I am grateful to have found a usecase for NFTs that isn't completely stupid.

I believe we need creative thinking for a decentralized DNS, though im not of the belief it would be incentive compatible to do so on a blockchain. ENS and similar systems are a neat parlour trick, but as a simple example, whos paying the bill for storing and serving that data to users? How does your client know that the data you are being fed isnt just a DNS injection? You could use POW to validate the authenticity, but then data creation must be throttled to maintain high enough fees. You could use proof of stake, and find DNS more centraluzed than ever.

Proof of Stake has low energy use, simple design which aligns network usage with token price and it's not centralized as people claim (that's FUD from Bitcoin maxis; reality is it's more resistant to centralization than PoW); so long as the initial distribution is sufficiently spread out and it's set up correctly, it tends to stay decentralized even when under attack. I've seen PoS blockchains maintain good decentralization even in extreme cases after massive price drops while someone is actively trying to buy up majority of tokens (what would happen is it would send the price shooting up temporarily and the attacker loses money after it crashes back down to the original level).

Also, the fees for updating DNS records go straight to the validators (people running the nodes) and this list of validators can change over time so it's not a fixed set of entities; yet whoever they are, they always have a substantial personal stake in the reliability of the project.

You don't need to throttle data creation, with PoS, the price of the token goes up with market demand for it. You just need to make the token the main mechanism for payment for purchasing domains and doing zone file updates. This coupling can be built into the code. Many projects have done similar things. E.g. FileCoin coupling token price to storage space.

...Problem with FileCoin is that while it's good for high-read, low-write scenarios (like DNS), it's not so good if everyone needs to update files frequently as update costs become prohibitively expensive. I guess FileCoin could be great for CDN use case.

Its anything but simple, which is why its proven subject to several attacks, the attack surface is so broad its not even mappable. Its a system of systematic centralization, its the DNA, it rewards people on the basis of their wealth. Its not like this system hasnt been tried before, its the basis for the operation of the federal reserve after all, and had you proposed it on the cypherpunk message boards it would have been ripped to shreds. I would rather live with no central mechanism for DNS, where browsers make you select from a variety of DNS providers that are privately hosted, than turn it over to a kleptocratic proof of stake system.