• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Well, if you want my version, centralized DNS and centralized PKI reliant on bureaucracy are all wrong.

    Identity providers should be a thing, and under one identity provider there should be ability to fix whatever domain name one wants, the act confirmed with cryptography. The providers themselves should technically be identified only by their public keys, and those should be listed in directories similar to yellow pages, changing very rarely preferably, where a key is listed against provider’s company name, phone, whether it’s paid or not, etc. Such directories being shared should be the only thing centralized here.

    Our world has a lot of ugly, inefficient and vulnerable systems.

    But the worst part is that common gaslighting or madness or whatever, where people act along unnecessary inefficiencies they themselves don’t need, like sheep watched by a shepherd dog. It’s obvious that various trash in governments wants systems vulnerable and centralized. But that’s what only they need, and only a handful of technologies they’ve rebuilt after that need. I don’t understand why the rest build bad systems where they don’t have to and don’t need to, or eve prefer bad systems where they have good ones.

    It’s similar to the question of why people subject to genocide often don’t fight for their lives, at least until it’s too late.

    • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Agreed, these systems are far too important to remain as centralized and vulnerable as they are currently. It is in governments’ best interests but not our own that they remain this way. Hopefully in the future things do change, I imagine the biggest push away from centralized DNS and centralized PKI will be from the fallout of shit like this breaking stuff and losing money.