@Hyolobrika @dpwiz
no, names in GNS are relative. there's never any conflict. if you link to example.com on a page you serve then it has to be resolved against your key. if I link to it on a page I serve then mine
there is no "global" namespace, only vendor defaults plus whatever you personally configure. but note that this is already the case. you can already, today, muck with your resolver or hosts file and do as you please. names are and will only ever be global by observance of convention
so as for convention. if GNS were to achieve widespread adoption the only sane path would be for ICANN centralized TLDs to remain exactly as they are and for vendors to ship them as the default. what you gain is security and autonomy in various ways. it decentralizes and hardens the underlying system design while still retaining the centralized defaults
no, names in GNS are relative. there's never any conflict. if you link to example.com on a page you serve then it has to be resolved against your key. if I link to it on a page I serve then mine
there is no "global" namespace, only vendor defaults plus whatever you personally configure. but note that this is already the case. you can already, today, muck with your resolver or hosts file and do as you please. names are and will only ever be global by observance of convention
so as for convention. if GNS were to achieve widespread adoption the only sane path would be for ICANN centralized TLDs to remain exactly as they are and for vendors to ship them as the default. what you gain is security and autonomy in various ways. it decentralizes and hardens the underlying system design while still retaining the centralized defaults
@roboneko @dpwiz But can't that cause confusion? If GNUnet e.V. won't include .foo for an illegitimate reason, someone can create it. But two people can create it at once with different PKEYs. If person A has one PKEY for .foo in their root zone and person B has another, then their systems will interpret different things by, say, https://www.bar.foo/. If person A wants to use the version of .foo that person B uses, then they'll have to import it as .foo2. But what if the server at www.bar.foo doesn't recognise the domain www.bar.foo2? That's what I meant by causing a problem with virtual hosts.
Follow
@Hyolobrika @roboneko The thing is, domain names are merely a convention we take for granted. And service providers take for granted that we do.
We could have been putting PKEYs in URLs. Well, that's what TOR "hidden" sites do anyway, without any ICANN, ICAN'T or IFORCEU whatsoever.
Also, consider magnet links, ipfs links, git hashes, etc etc
