Since the dawn of decentralization, blockchain technology and cryptocurrency, quite a number of self-acclaimed decentralized networks have emerged with the promise of extending the arm of decentralization to the internet. Unfortunately, the majority of these domain-naming networks were unable to deliver the promised decentralized web system. Some even claim they do, but in the real sense, they have not been able to meet the level of decentralization expected in web 3.0.
With ethereum domains, it appears that we are again on the same old route of another sophisticated crypto domain network that claims to give the ideal alternative to the centralized ICANN-governed system via its decentralized network. So far, ethereum domains have fallen short of their promises and expectations in terms of fitting the web 3.0 decentralization concept. A truly decentralized web 3 network is expected to have a structure that gives users total and complete control. It is an independent and secure system that guarantees users complete privacy and anonymity, which is the polar opposite of what the present ICANN-governed centralized web 2.0 infrastructure provides.
Moreover, despite its flaws, the arrival of web 2.0 modified the internet model for the better compared to what it was previously. However, one of its major drawbacks is that it is managed by a single entity, giving users little or no control over their domains or online presence. In contrast, web 3.0 strives to improve on these problems, which means that decentralization is a big element of what web 3.0 stands for.
As a result, a decentralized system is one that can perform all of the functions of the existing central web regulatory body, ICANN, but in a decentralized manner. So far, Ethereum domains have been unable to do so, owing to the fact that they do not provide top-level domains, much alone manage the domain root server, which are important duties for ICANN. Let us delve deeper to discover what the Ethereum naming service is and is not.
Ethereum Naming Service (ENS)
One of the fundamental functions of Ethereum domains, which they have performed admirably thus far, is to simplify large strings of complex crypto addresses. They introduce human-friendly names into the crypto ecosystem, allowing crypto users to replace the long, convoluted string of addresses with something significantly more understandable and easier to use.
A traditional crypto address, for example, is a string of mixed case letters and digits that looks like 0xBq13B846F5aB247qW0ac3. As you might imagine, making crypto transactions with such complicated addresses can pose a problem, as it can be difficult to remember and write manually. As a result, the danger of making mistakes like inputting the incorrect address when making transactions increases. To prevent making mistakes, most crypto traders just copy and paste the address. On the other hand, ENS eliminates the need to copy or enter such laong addresses. So, with ENS, you can transfer money to a pal at ‘mycryptowallet.eth’ rather than the long string of alpha-numeric addresses. It is, therefore, safe to say that the ethereum Name Service (ENS) is a service that makes it easy to send and receive cryptocurrency by simple names rather than by long, complex strings of letters and numbers.
The problem with ENS is that it also claims to connect to the rest of the internet. This means that Eth domains are not only intended to simplify crypto transactions, as the owners will claim, but can also be used to host a decentralized website that supposedly gives users control, enhanced security, anonymity, autonomy, and privacy and is intended to be an improvement over the traditional web 2.0 domain system.
These Eth domain URLs, on the other hand, are distinguished by the .eth or .luke extensions, which serve as their secondary domain zone. In other words, ENS offers its users second-level domains. The top-level domains and the root server, on the other hand, are at the top of the domain hierarchy. As a centralized institution in web 2.0, ICANN supervises the issuing of TLDs and the root domain servers. This provides them censorship authority and complete control over the domain system.
Therefore, a system that issues infinite decentralized top-level domains while also decentralizing the domain root server is required to give a decentralized alternative to ICANN. Ethereum does not currently meet this requirement. While it provides a system that differs slightly from ICANN’s, it does not necessarily accomplish complete decentralization. Overall, it lacks the degree of decentralization associated with web 3.0. Let us look at some of the system’s other flaws:
Anonymity
Although ENS claims to provide a system in which users’ identities are unknown and untraceable, it turns out that this is not the case. Maybe it’s a little different from the typical ICANN-governed registry system, in which registrars maintain all of your personal or corporate information, but these ENS addresses are not anonymous as well. This is because there exists data that links an address to a person or entity, and governments and corporations can query it.
Access
It is hardly surprising that few individuals are interested in ENS services, with one significant reason being the associated access barrier. Ethereum domains can only be accessed by a few browsers. Moreso, there are even a few browser extensions and resolvers that can be used to access these domains.
Private key management
Another disadvantage of Eth domains, which is also true of most crypto domains, is that users are entirely responsible for keeping and protecting their private keys. If this key is lost, access to the corresponding domain is lost. The system currently lacks a password or key reset mechanism to serve as a buffer against such events if and when they occur.
Conclusion
When viewed through the lens of a decentralized internet, Ethereum domains are riddled with flaws. This is due to the system’s structure, which cannot provide the complete decentralization required to even match ICANN, let alone challenge it.