Talk:Zooko's triangle

message: Secondary sourcing here is pretty thin and mostly at the blog level. While there are a few academics who peddled their solution for this alleged problem (see petname), it's rather easy to be unsurprised that in the real world the ability to name "paypal.com" as "MyBank" (and have it automatically recognized as such) doesn't make a huge difference. Browser bookmarks already do that one way, and in some browsers (Firefox for example) bookmarked URLs are automatically recognized and marked with a yellow star, which is less than having a separate name pop up for each URL, but still good enough to most people because the probability that you'd have already bookmarked a phishing site trying to impersonate a legit one is practically zero. In other words, there isn't really a problem that memorable names are (or have to be) global. Never mind that such naming globalization assists, you know, communication between people... Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Zooko's triangle was the major impedance to decentralized websites for decades.  No one liked the cenorship of the web, but no one could do anything about it for this exact reason.  Google scholar turns up ~140 scholarly articles which mention this topic.  Indolering (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I edited the article to say that DNSSec is secure and human-meaningful (it currently says secure and decentralized).
DNSSec is certainly human-meaningful - low-entropy names are provided to the users. wikipedia.org instead of AKRNCVFEWRHTVJAFBASXDMAZCRV?SNJTCAERTYES&BIRYORVSYVESOVJSZDF. This is not disputable.
DNSSec is certainly not decentralized - there is a set of root servers operated by one organization. You cannot get a name unless the root authority permits you to own it. This happens indirectly by delegating each level - the root authority allows another organization to own all of .org, then that organization allows Wikimedia to own wikipedia.org, and so on. I don't believe this counts as decentralized. Compare with Tor .onion addresses (decentralized, not human-meaningful) or 
DNSSec is secure (in principle) - nobody can take over a domain. The root can inflict damage, but that is true of *any* centralized system. Compare with a hypothetical system where computers simply announce the domains they own, which would be decentralized and human-meaningful, but not secure - you could take over someone else's domain by announcing it. Or one where every user can assign their own human-readable names to unreadable high-entropy identifiers - then you can't be sure what a name will refer to on any given system.
Am I missing something?
Immibis (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that is correct. Indolering (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNSSec 

message: I removed the following text:
Zooko removed/deleted his blog post about Zooko's triangle which suggests that he may not think that the reasoning for the concept is particularly sound, as shown by later solutions to the trilemma.
I removal is justifiable because it has an editorial tone and because it appears that his entire blog is down - not just that page.  This was a major topic of discussion in the academic literature and was not solvable until Bitcoin came along.
Indolering (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Blogpost