looks like those who don't waste their money on #NFTs, are wasting their time being angry about them instead 🤔.
@sofia somewhat, yes, at least I do -- but that's because I care deeply about digital human rights, rights of artists, and access to culture.
All of these are threatened by NFTs, and I notice people either:
1. have no idea about NFTs
2. are very pro and vocal
3. are quite against but not very vocal
End result is that NFT proponents are much more vocal and visible, and are effectively controlling the debate. I find that dangerous.
@rysiek i don't think NFTs can really do that. if they really can, than only as a tiny extension of the plague called intellectual property. i'd wish people were more vocal about _that_ instead.
im my filter bubble, i've never seen a positive mention of them. but i've seen a redfash wanting "all coinbros on the wall" 🙄…
and like technically NFTs aren't really about claiming ownership of artworks, it's more of a solution waiting for a problem.
@sofia @rysiek IDK about that. There are already NFT licenses out there.
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek This is either incredible satire or a testament to the sad state of NFTs 😂
"guarantees of the uniqueness and long-term value of NFTs"
A license that has to be enforced by a centralized court system can't possibly be reconciled with the core values of blockchains and NFTs.
If their NFT isn't "unique" then it's not nonfungible. And if their decentralized blockchain solution requires a centralized court system to work then it's not decentralized 😂
@rune @Hyolobrika @sofia coinbros not intellectually consistent? Shocked, I am!
@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia I think it's interesting because it clearly indicates that some people using NFTs misunderstood what an NFT does and now they're trying to shoehorn NFTs into a solution that satisfies their real need.
But if the problem is solved through copyright, then the NFT component is just a energy wasting buzzword.
@rune @Hyolobrika @sofia NFT *is* just an energy wasting buzzword.
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune domain names on any kind of blockchain will lead to pool of names being depleted gradually, as people forget their passwords, lose access their private keys, and so on.
They also (by design) do not provide any possibility of human intervention. Somebody tricks you and steals your domain from you? You're shit out of luck my friend, time to change the name of your company or organization. Nothing can be done.
Unless of course, like with DAO, the developers decide that this is bad…
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune …and just hard-code certain changes (like in the case of DAO-related ETH hard-fork).
But then, how is this not centralized control? 
Finally, proof-of-stake means whoever gets to control >50% of voting power on the blockchain, controls the blockchain. Money equals power, yet again.
Thanks, I'll take the current (imperfect) DNS system over anything blockchainy.
(full disclosure, I work for the .IS registry; make of it what you will)
The Ethereum devs were only able to do that with the consent of the nodes. And they weren't 100% successful. Nodes that did not agree, stayed with the old version of the blockchain, and that's the origin of Ethereum Classic.
As for PoS being rule of the rich, well, everything is rule of the rich, including DNS. How much do you have to pay to own a TLD again? I'd also prefer the possible middling centralisation of PoS over the explicit and extreme centralisation of DNS anyday.
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rune that's a fair view, of course.
My problem is that even with the "extreme centralization" of DNS, there is a way to stop some bad outcomes (remember .org sale that got stopped?).
Meanwhile, if it's blockchain, seller sells buyer buys, and that's it, whether you like it or not.
@rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia A blockchain solution would also completely break the very intentional rules laid out for some TLD's.
For example rules that help deal with typo squatting and domain squatting.
The ethos of blockchain is removing regulation, and that ethos is bad.
@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia OTOH you could decentralise DNS somewhat by replacing ICANN with a consortium made up of the national registries, and require a number of root servers at each of them. At least as an outline of a solution, that is.
@rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia The point here is, it's theoretically very easy to decentralise DNS, because other than the root maintenance, it's already decentralised - via delegation.
@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia Actually, DNS is distributed, and far from being decentralized. A tree is, by essence, hierarchical, and hierarchy is, by essence, opposed to peer systems. One could decentralize one node of the DNS tree, and a branch could be composed of decentralized nodes, but each delegation acts as a bailliwick, both technically and organisationally.
@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia That's a lot to unpack.
Definitions of decentralised Vs distributed go back to Baran's 1964 paper ( https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf ), where the main criterion he uses to distinguish distributed systems from decentralised ones is whether the destruction of a node or link affects the availability of nodes (in a nutshell).
Conceptually - in name structure and resolution order of full names - DNS..
@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... is not in the slightest distributed. What makes it distributed technically is that at every level in the name hierarchy it's possible to have redundancy, such that destruction of any individual name server does not affect resolution.
Organisationally, it's not distributed, either. Here, we don't even have this kind of redundancy. It's not as if - commonly speaking - any name...
@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... completely different things here?
@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia I suppose this is indeed a terminology issue. DNS is not decentralized because there is a very clear "center": the root zone, and every domain name acts as the center of their own subdomains. However, callling the DNS centralized would be inaccurate, because TLDs and specifically ccTLDs are owned by various entites or countries, each having their own set of rules, legislations and technical infrastructures.
@jens @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia
Now, is "distributed" the best adjective to describe that topology? I believe this is the case, but I can accept that one would disagree :) Clearly, DNS is a client/server model, and thus, one could argue that the client/server model is by essence not distributed. I would say that it is "distributed enough" :D
@Hyolobrika @sofia @rysiek @rune @jens
A domain can be "unlinked" by their direct parent and it happens all the time, for political, economic or legal reasons. Pressures from a grand parent are rarer but can still exist, yes. For instance, eu.org is a SLD that is acting as a "second-level registry". I guess they could be pressured to unlink a domain by their parent or risk being unlinked themselves.
@x_cli @rune @rysiek @Hyolobrika @sofia ... component is managed by multiple legal entities. So I don't really know where the claim comes from that it's distributed.
It's very much decentralised organisationally, though, in that no central entity controls the entire name assignment space.
TLDs at the root are a bit of an exception simply because they're a single root, because the names are hierarchical.
Are we talking about...