Interesting, but you forget a few things.
  1. UX/Usage As often here, you focus on the technicality but not enough on usability (user point of view). If I read well, the Nomen solution requires to know Bitcoin AND own some bitcoin in a wallet AND have a Nostr account AND know what you're doing. You already lost 99.9% of the world population here. All this to register a "domain name" that is actually not recognized as such...
  2. ENS Funny that your long post fails to mention ENS (Ethereum Name System), the most important alternative name system of all times. ENS has been live for 6 years and has about 3 millions names registered (despite quite expensive prices). Like it of not, sounds like a huge success to me. At one point bitcoiners will have to accept reality.
  3. Unstoppable Domain You're a bit fast on your analysis on UD. Their system is working very well. It's fast, simple, and cheap (not mentioning that contrary to pretty much all other systems, the registrants own their names forever with no additional fees). UD is also a huge success and they are making deals with tons of people, from browser to gaming industry. You seem to consider that having a browser compatibility is a detail, but it's actually the key to success.
All in all, as much as I agree that ICANN should be replaced by something more decentralized, I don't think that Bitcoin fits in.
I can't help but seeing in your post yet another example of the "Bitcoin maxi frustration", characterized by the urge to replicate on Bitcoin everything that has been done on Ethereum for many years (NFTs, DeFi, ZK and now naming system).
This is absurd. We should work on making Bitcoin the world global currency, and that's already a fucking tough job. Multiplying copycats and stuff that don't need to be done on Bitcoin can only blur the message and delay Bitcoin success.
Unstoppable Domains is trying to patent their tech:
Should be dismissed on that grounds alone, IMO.
reply
We're probably not going to move forward with the discussions in regard to points 2 and 3. We have our base stances on those from the looks of it so will move on from it.
In regards to point 1 however, yes, I'm in agreement here (aside from the issue of having btc, that is an 'issue' everywhere), as it was mentioned/implied in the post. With that said, it's only a matter of time before the UX part becomes sexy (discussions about that is already underway by interested individuals).
reply