In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.
My guess is that if you create a blockchain for registering DNS, and only the current registrars can issue coins on said blockchain, you might have a solution they would be willing to implement. You'd still have to pay them money to register a new domain or maintain it, but once you had the coin, you could register whatever you wanted and no government could stop you.
With Handshake, you run your own authoritative server (or use a hosted one) for your own name and that authoritative server's information will be obtainable on chain. No middle-man, no rent seeking.
Many root servers operate outside of the US. If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses, then even if they blocked the US roots the others would still have it.
Even today if all the US root servers go off-line every system would find the others and use them.
But it's not -- the root servers are -- by premise here. Premise is we assume zero config results in ICANN root servers having authority. My point is that given this premise, blockchain is ineffective. You are introducing ICANN as informational MITM and censor node in between user and blockchain validation.
True, you are excluding USA, if your only goal is exclude USA then this accomplishes that goal, but if your goal is censorship-proof then this is not it.
Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.
I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory management/models/toolchains.
Browsers are a living nightmare of complexity, and I am continuously amazed at the number of programmers who have no clue about the gory details of networking.
I've thought much this same thing myself for ages now.
Not just "complicating the hell out of things" either. Complicating the hell out of things that should be simple ( or at least should be simplified, or automated, or something ). I see a lot of tedious activities in modern computing that appear to exist purely for the sake of the tedium time-wastery factor.
The flip-side of the same coin is the over-simplifying or "dumbing down" of some things that really should stay "complicated" (and hidden behind an "expert mode" toggle) to the point of allowing willfully uneducated morons to repeatedly "shoot themselves in the foot" and justify blaming everyone and everything but themselves for their error.
That sort of "computers should be an appliance like a toaster" mentality has contributed to a culture which seems convinced they should be able to magically jump from zero to "Hacker-Man" with no effort or learning required, the very same day they decide to "learn" programming.
This has been the story for many sites, where domains are seized even if owned by a non-US person/company, with an order to the TLD that operates in the US. With a distributed DNS system like Handshake, 'in theory' this shouldn't be possible, since it would require multiple nodes to alter a domain's DNS records vs. a central TLD authority which has to abide by US law.
It's all interesting, but it still seems we are ways off from the DNS backbone (& my browser) operating with this kind of DNS architecture. It even appears it's becoming easier to take down a domain, not at the TLD/registrar level, but more so at the hosting level (e.g. Parler)
For instance, if the browser makers all started resolving certain TLDs via an alternate network, then people could start publishing websites using domains managed by that network without needing to engage with the root DNS servers at all.
There are, however, other reasons why one might think Handshake isn't up to par just yet. Those reasons might be, for example, even though it completes the internet, making it significantly more secure and sovereign, the current implementations including DANE aren't as fast. Of course, this too [1] will be addressed with time.
There are highly technical people working on these problems with a heavy lean on making sure the experience is comparable if not better than today's expected experience. I think things will only get better from here.
The Handshake design still seems like a step in the right direction, but even with sound data, it's probably years away (if ever) for DNS resolution to "flip the switch" to use this kind of architecture.
Seems like you might be caught on the infinite abstraction escalator though, as who will manage the DNSNS (Domain Name Service NameSpaces) servers, and who'll take the onus for making the standard selector or display for the user to decide which lookup to consider canon for the request? This would actually be a pretty exciting development.
This would greatly complicate domain squatting (or maybe intensify/arms race it), and add a layer of resilience in the form of building up the interfaces required for users to maintain their own private DNS namespaces. This would conclusively shut the door in terms of centralized seizability of domains, since the user would in effect be empowered to be their own registrar.
You could even keep the traditional stuff seizable I guess. However, you'd be able to ask the fellow down the street if he still had the old DNS entry for x.y.z
yeah okay
seen it for 20 years now...
.001% would be absolutely enormous, and the actual start of a thing.
the design and use case of it looks laughable to me. however, it does spark the imagination.
...I am wondering if it must also be a javascript project...
> even gnutella became The Pirate Bay.
Never thought about that.