Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> When I'm talking about decentralized I'm saying that the technology doesn't even have a place for the benevolent dictator to exist. Not that the node is constrained politically. The node is not even there.

This is why I asked your definition and alternatives because that isn’t possible or desirable for a system like DNS, or almost anything else. At some point you need a query for your bank to go to the intended party, not a scammer, and that means that you usually end up relying on third-parties. A decentralized in the standard definition system like DNS handles the root issue using social consensus which makes abuse obvious and limited to the period before an untrustworthy party is no longer consulted.



DNS is decentralized in only weak ways, NOT with respect to the naming authority.

I mean the DNS root, which holds all authority, is not decentralized.

You only call it decentralized by looking at the aspects of the system besides how naming authority is structured!

I think nobody cares about your "standard" definition at all. The naming authority is the part of the system that matters (and is big business).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: