> But it doesn't matter because this issue is already solved. We already have globally unique usernames. They're called email addresses, they are unique by their very nature, and they are (for all intents and purposes) already decentralized.
No, they're not: billg@microsoft.com depends on microsoft.com, which depends on com, which depends on the root nameservers, which are … a central nameservice.
That's the whole point of Zooko's Triangle: of secure, decentralised and human-readable, you can have at most two. Global-singleton approaches are still centralised (the singleton is the centre), although they may build the singleton in a decentralised fashion.
I think you misunderstand what the phrase "for all intents and purposes" means. It doesn't mean "literally, 100% true" it means "for true enough for this argument". What network does your blockchain run on? It still relies on Comcast to get to my house right? Because you want it to run over the Internet? Maybe you're using AT&T? Probably L3 is in there somewhere, but you're still relying on a centralized piece of equipment somewhere, and you're probably going to have a .com or .org to advertise it, and you might have a Wikipedia page or a Facebook group or collaborate development on Github and chat with your team on Slack and exchange files on Dropbox and send messages on Gmail and you log into all of those services with... your globally unique email address. Possibly using a domain you own, with the mail exchange hosted on a server you own that you set up specifically for this project.
Maybe I'm missing the point, and I would look to you to explain to me what that is. But I guess congrats, you don't rely on ICANN anymore...
> I think you misunderstand what the phrase "for all intents and purposes" means. It doesn't mean "literally, 100% true" it means "for true enough for this argument".
Email addresses aren't in any way decentralised. Saying they are isn't true enough.
> What network does your blockchain run on?
The product in question _doesn't_ rely on ICANN, or Comcast running to your house; it can work without either of those.
xyr point seems to be that your claim that e-mail addresses are decentralized is faulty. No amount of "Well you are not decentralized in your block chain, either." is going to rebut that. Indeed, it actually reinforces the argument that your claim was faulty, by implicitly agreeing to it with a "but neither are you" response.
So perhaps you would like to now explain how e-mail addresses are a system without a centre. Bear in mind that you yourself have just made the point about ICANN being at their centre. (-:
No, they're not: billg@microsoft.com depends on microsoft.com, which depends on com, which depends on the root nameservers, which are … a central nameservice.
That's the whole point of Zooko's Triangle: of secure, decentralised and human-readable, you can have at most two. Global-singleton approaches are still centralised (the singleton is the centre), although they may build the singleton in a decentralised fashion.