20:04 <ocdtrekkie> Presumably DNS is perfectly decentralized if you're okay with multiple domains. Have different participants use different registrars with different TLDs managed by different jurisdictions, and you probably have a reasonably decentralized setup. You could even additionally support some crypto domains, Brave supports some of them already.

20:06 <ocdtrekkie> Then you have a new problem, which is verifying everyone is talking to the real Freenode. Sign it, and then you have a new single point of failure to decentralize.

20:08 <ocdtrekkie> You are left with a different problem that the blockchain could solve, but ironically not to Lee's benefit: If you wanted a non commercial entity like Freenode to survive without one bad actor being able to upheave it all... presumably you could give everyone in management a node on a blockchain, where control of it is done by consensus, and

20:08 <ocdtrekkie> activities like signing servers as legitimate could be done as transactions on this chain. A 51% attack would be pretty much fine: It'd be a decision of the majority.

20:09 <ocdtrekkie> If everyone participating in Freenode had such a system effectively controlling Freenode assets and trust, nobody would've given control of it to Andrew Lee.

20:12 <ocdtrekkie> Lee's actions also demonstrate another inherent weakness in that model: Blockchain authority doesn't matter that much if you have enough lawyers.