You may note that ICANN only really got into these sorts of games after gaining independence from the US government...
As long as the Internet namespace, or DNS, is governed by US (California state specifically) law, the Internet itself will be operating under the same jurisdiction as DNS is generally considered critical to the function of the Internet.
This is a very strong reason that, just like currency [2], the Internet namespace is also ripe to be decentralized to distributed ownership by the people [3].
The internet deserves to be owned by the people - not any single government.
There are definitely a lot of issues that aren’t working in the ICANN system as we all know [1][2][3].
What are the issues that can’t be handled in the Handshake blockchain ecosystem?
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbit...
[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/symantec-issues-rogue-...
You first need a system which works and scales to plausible levels before we can say anything about whether it’s a viable solution for anything. In particular, it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control — and the inherent inefficiency of a blockchain means that there’d be more of a likelihood that power would consolidate in a few major players.
(As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be?)
As someone following Bitcoin for a long time since just after genesis, I can assure you that replacing cash and credit cards was never on the original agenda but instead a byproduct of the goal. Make no mistake, the goal was always to decentralize currency and give the “power” of money back to the people. That said, in a decentralized system, there can be more than one goal and goals do not need to be unified across participants. That freedom is one of the beauties of decentralization.
As long as a third party central authority controls our money system, we will always be subject to the whims of the few. Bitcoin is helping to liberate us and it’s absolutely working.
> it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control
This exists by virtue of our trust in cryptography - which for me is absolute.
> As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be?
Less directly and more by way of overall system architecture, the separation of DNS and “truth” has caused many issues to the Internet. It’s relevant because Handshake finally combines DNS and truth [1] by essentially completing the once incomplete DNSSEC.
A bold claim without evidence. In fact, the opposite may be true [1]. This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2].
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco...
[2]: https://thebitcoinnews.com/study-argues-chinese-mining-centr...
> [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco...
The same can be said about any money system in a capitalist economy (e.g., 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the US [1.1]).
> This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2].
I'm not sure this is 'looming' today as the article boldly claims, but centralization is definitely a risk. It's important for everyone to participate in the system as they can for a more equal distribution of ownership - akin to how one should exercise their vote in US elections.
[1.1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
Bitcoin emerged from the Cypherpunks crowd; while nobody has positively IDed the 'real' author of the paper, the ideological motivations are rooted in anarcho-capitalist thought. The operative theory is really not that different than Grover Norquist's; attack the tax base and the state withers. Grover is just less ambitious.
The flaw in the bitcoin thesis is that the internet is powerful tool of centralized control and reinforces authoritarians, not the opposite.
The only thing I would disagree with is the disagreement about the claims about effectiveness.
While we may not have "replaced money," make no mistake, we have entered a new era - bitcoin was not stopped even though they tried.
Bitcoin has succeeded. It is our symbol of proof - proof that we the people can control our own money.
It's so volatile it's useless except for speculators.
Greed ruined it, I feel, like it does with everything else.
We probably disagree on other things bitcoin-related, but right here I think it is only about how we're defining 'success'. I agree that it is an existence-proof for decentralized currency, and am not trying to downplay the significance of that.
As someone who was also there, I stopped reading at this point. The things getting circulation were bold predictions about replacing cash and credit cards in daily life and anyone who questioned that inevitability was dismissed as not understanding it. Everyone knew it was an attempt to dress up “use your money to make me rich” in a more noble guise but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
From the handshake FAQ: 'There are no social or technical guarantees with the renewability or ownership, this is an experimental system, please read the code to see details of how it currently works'. That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached...
The blockchain auctions domains off to the highest bidder thru a blind Vickrey auction [1] wherein the winner pays the amount of the second highest bid.
After the auction completes, the coins are burned (provably destroyed).
Both the legacy ICANN system and new TLDs on Handshake [2] are working together in harmony.
To be clear, everything on the internet including the internet itself started as an experiment.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction
[2] https://dns.live - Domain Adoption
The hns paid for winning an auction are destroyed.
> There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached.
Handshake is anything but a short term profit-maximization scheme! The Handshake developers took $10 million of VC money and donated it to free and open source foundations: https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/
If for some reason the US thought ICANN shouldn't be subject to US law, they could do something similar. Being inside a country's borders doesn't always mean being subject to its laws.
Of course, the corruption in the .org selloff doesn't make me feel ICANN needs less oversight. And it's questionable whether the US can grant independence it cannot revoke, at least from an international realist perspective.
Wasn't Verisign a problem before ICANN became a non-government entity?