Blockchain vs. Traditional Domains

[flip]

Hi,

I do not yet understand 100% the difference between blockchain and traditional domains. Can anyone experienced with that shed some light into this?

The points which are unclear to me:

Assuming that blockchain domains will be supported in browsers some day, who decides who the owners of top-level domains (TLDs) is? .crypto as a TLD example is not listed in the list of available TLDs ([data.iana.org ]) that are centrally managed. Say ICANN will award the .crypto domain to a registrar, this registrar can sell .crypto domains which will be shown in a browser. What happens then with the domains you sold on the blockchain?

How has been decided that only Unstoppable Domains can sell .crypto and ENS can sell .eth domains on the blockchain or would it be possible that also other entities sell them? What happens if another person or entity sells the same .crypto domains on the ethereum blockchain? Is that possible? How is it guaranteed that each domain is unique?

Wouldn't it be possible to sell .crypto domains on another blockchain than ethereum?

Thanks so much to anyone who can clarify my points,

Philip

[NickMNS]

These are very good questions that I don't think have good answers. Basically the .crypto or .eth TLD are sold as TLD's on their own protocols ENS which is not the same as DNS. So what you point out above is absolutely possible ICANN could decide tomorrow to start allowing domain on the .eth TLD for DNS and the same domain name could match to two different websites. I doubt that they would, but as far as I know it depends on ICANNs good will.

It is worth pointing out that the main goal as currently stated by Ethereum for ENS is not for the addresses to be used for hosting websites, but rather to be used to identify wallet addresses. So if you have an online shop that accepts ETH as payment instead of telling your customers to send payment to a cryptic and long address, you ask them to send payment to MomNPopShop.eth. That said it is possible to host website with a .eth tld, but it would live on IPFS and most browsers would not be able to resolve it, only Brave and Opera I believe. Otherwise you would need to use an IPFS gateway. I doubt that Googlebot would be able to crawl it either. But things are changing quickly in this space.

The big advantage of the .ens or unstoppabledomains domains is that you own the domain outright in an NFT, so you pay once an it's yours. Ownership can't be revoked.


More info here:
[docs.ens.domains...]

[phranque]

what is most relevant here is that those domains should not respond to http(s) requests and in any case those hostnames would not resolve in a DNS request.
if these ever became available as web domains and you were concerned about your brand you would immediately purchase those domains.

[flip]

@NickMNS: For the domains purchased via Unstoppable Domains, you get the eternal ownership over the domain. For the domains via ENS, the ownership is limited to the registration period. However, right now you need some interface to manage the domain settings which is offered by both providers. Since Unstoppable Domains only earns a one-time fee, they might also decide to charge one-time or recurring fees to use their domain panel or you have to find another solution. The argument of owning the domain forever is nice but you still depend on tools to manage the information in the blockchain if you aren't a coder.

@phranque: To get some kind of mass adoption, I think that it would be useful if the blockchain domains work in most browsers. With IPFS there are also use cases for hosting content in the blockchain and mapping domains onto it. I hope that the functionality to use IPFS and map domains to crypto addresses will also be supported by the traditional domains in the future.

[Webwork]

Aside from the tech answers above (nice work fellas) allow me to add a bit of domain name perspective.

Domains that rely of systems or tech outside the existing DNS system are beyond wildly speculative. AFAIC they are little more than money grabs, sucking $$$ from the pockets of folks looking to buy a winning lottery ticket by being an early adopter.

Remember .mobi "for the mobile internet"? Man, did the vendors / sellers of .mobi domains - including those looking to profit on resales - push hard to sell the idea that the mobile internet needed or would be based upon .mobi domains.

Also, once before there were domains that required "special browsers". Doh! What fool would speculatively buy such nonsense . . . umm . . . err . . . #FoolMeOnce

Ditto .crypto, .eth, .meta, .yourfathersmustache

IF and/or WHEN the tech tied to those domains gTLDs (crypto, eth, etc) becomes widely available and a necessary or superior solution/system then it's more than likely the existing system will find a way to merge, adapt to, adopt or continue to function.

In other words, Hotels.com, Bloomberg.com, NYTimes.com, Congress.gov, MayoClinic.org, Harvard.edu, etc. aren't going anywhere.

P.S. And I likely won't be around to eat my own words should such a dramatic shift away from the massive, institutionalized, etc. addressing system ever occur.

[NickMNS]

With IPFS there are also use cases for hosting content in the blockchain and mapping domains onto it.

Just to clarify, IPFS is not a blockchain, it is a peer to peer network for storage. While it is decentralized like a blockchain, it is not a one.
More info here: [ipfs.io...]

The blockchain (Ethereum in this case) only really figures into to this as means of proof of ownership of the domain, in the form of an NFT.