In the name of freedom
Neutral money like Bitcoin preserves economic freedom. It respects individual liberty. It silently defends property rights. Whether you are an individual or a corporation, it gives you full empowerment over your decisions about production, investment, and consumption without the threat of censorship, confiscation, or degradation. Without government interference, this encourages self-reliance and contributes to social harmony. In other words, Bitcoin is essential to maintaining a free, prosperous, and just society. The same goes for naming. If there is one thing as important to society as money, it is naming. Names are needed for almost everything, and individuals and corporations should be able to own their names without being controlled by a central third party.
Names and money have historically relied on trust for their effectiveness, but just as Bitcoin has ushered in an era of trustlessness, so too should names.
The central naming providers are dinosaurs.
People need to realize, if they haven’t already, that they don’t own their property. Social media usernames that you can always access with one click. From the confiscation of their property, or what should be their property.
The security risks of relying on centralized naming systems are especially true for individuals and businesses that build their businesses with Bitcoin. If you rely on centralized naming services, it’s only a matter of time before you get hacked, just as we saw with Space Square DNS hijacking last month.
Governments often silence political opponents by confiscating their names. For example, Pointcata private Catalan non-profit organization whose mission is to promote all types of activities related to the creation, management and control of the .cat top-level domain name and, in general, the promotion of the Catalan language and culture. The organization was raided by Spanish police during a turbulent political period and forced to block several websites critical of the Spanish government due to legal pressure from Madrid. The head of the IT department was arrested on charges of sedition.
Furthermore, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is responsible for managing the global domain name system, has faced many controversies over the years regarding central control, transparency, and accountability. ICANN’s practices and policies are opaque, and have been revealed in the past. He was summoned. By the likes of Ralph Nader for violating consumer rights, as Electronic Frontier Foundation In other words, there is a clear tendency to fall into the trap of excessive deference given to the interests of major trademark and copyright holders.
The point is that if we do not succeed in decentralizing naming, the risk of censorship, property confiscation, and other rights will always remain under attack.
As Bitcoin continues to evolve alongside neighboring technology protocols like NOSTR, names will become increasingly important for this reason alone. Names can serve as identifiers for different components within these systems, facilitating communication between different parties and improving usability, interoperability, and freedom of expression.
Don’t call it a comeback
Previous attempts to decentralize naming have included initiatives such as the split of the DNS root server in 1997 and new top-level domains (TLDs) such as .bit and .name. In the cryptocurrency space, projects such as Namecoin, BitDNS, and blockchain-based naming services from companies like Namecoin, Blockstack, and Stacks have also sought to decentralize naming systems. Despite these efforts, many of these initiatives have failed due to limited adoption, scalability issues, distribution issues, and other technical complexities, leaving centralized naming systems dominant in both the traditional Internet and the crypto landscape.
Earlier this year, Matt Corallo proposed a joint plan to coordinate Bitcoin payments using DNS. Matt is right not to rely on another blockchain (like Ethereum’s ENS), but he admits that relying on traditional centralized DNS is risky, and that it’s just the “best option.” There are organizations between you and your name, and every website that uses HTTPS to encrypt traffic relies on a third party to secure it — you literally don’t hold your own keys. Not your keys, not your name.
What is needed is a truly decentralized, permissionless naming system, built on top of Bitcoin, free of third-party certificate authorities, that gives users control over their online identity and privacy. Unlike previous attempts, naming should be done in a cryptographically focused way, without the need for a new blockchain, modifications to Bitcoin itself, a new token, a foundation, or pre-mining. Users should be in complete control over how names are registered, managed, and transferred.
The future of the label is Cypherpunk.
Once seen as a democratic force for free expression and global communication, the Internet now faces increasing threats from government censorship, corporate influence, and technical vulnerabilities. Decentralized naming, built on the strong and secure foundation of Bitcoin, offers a future where individuals and businesses have greater control over their identities, thoughts, and information. By leveraging Bitcoin’s immutable, transparent, and censorship-resistant nature, decentralized naming systems can provide a more flexible and democratic alternative to managing their identities. With Bitcoin as a backbone, we can ensure that decentralized naming is not only inevitable, but also truly successful in creating a global, open, and free Internet—one where everyone has an equal voice in shaping the global conversation without fear of censorship or control. An encrypted Internet.
This is a guest post by Mike Carson. The opinions expressed here are entirely his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.