You're both right from where I'm looking.
I've been saying that DNS is the perfect mechanism to assert NIP-05 identifiers (and Lud-16 lnurls, and even BTC addresses) for quite some time.
In the case of NIP-05/LUD-16 The .well-known/URI scheme is limiting - and I would also argue, less secure than, say, a DNSSEC signed zone.
While true that DNS is "centralized" ultimately at the root level, there is no content or participant level censorship there - the DNS tree is somewhat like a federated namespace AND there will in time be more decentralized namespaces outside of the IANA tree within which one could pin their NIP-05 or LUD-16 ids.
None of these arguments have convinced the people it needs to (*cough* fiatjaf (npub180c…h6w6) *cough*) - and to his counter-points, I do somewhat get it).
It is possible that somebody, someday could propose another NIP entirely for the assertion of NIP-05-like id's (they would look exactly the same) via DNS TXT recs.
It is not obvious or probable that such a NIP proposal would succeed.
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll refer to my previous article on this sort of thing here (and there are a few threads on Github somewhere):
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/simplifying-bitcoin-addresses-dns
bombthrower / Mark E. Jeftovic
npub1el…mehan
2023-07-12 15:38:04 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…hrgs
Author Public Key
npub1elwpzsul8d9k4tgxqdjuzxp0wa94ysr4zu9xeudrcxe2h3sazqkq5mehanPublished at
2023-07-12 15:38:04 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "d05406aef32cfa5a55d8212deefd82c9aeb5b7b0ec935d2bee55c129fa760b6d",
"pubkey": "cfdc11439f3b4b6aad060365c1182f774b524075170a6cf1a3c1b2abc61d102c",
"created_at": 1689176284,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8980106c69c2f97e3dae0b5e5dda7c8aa650577570d733f62618c38cf819e17a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"061adc1987180571eb3233df2002543059efe291172ce086cdbe7d356853cfe3",
"wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6a02b7d5d5c1ceec3d0ad28dd71c4cfeebb6397b95fef5cd5032c9223a13d02a"
],
[
"p",
"2f02d76f09666ae076e65beb60ff195eb7f44b51c73147a6a37748bfabd60a7c"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
]
],
"content": "You're both right from where I'm looking.\n\nI've been saying that DNS is the perfect mechanism to assert NIP-05 identifiers (and Lud-16 lnurls, and even BTC addresses) for quite some time.\n\nIn the case of NIP-05/LUD-16 The .well-known/URI scheme is limiting - and I would also argue, less secure than, say, a DNSSEC signed zone. \n\nWhile true that DNS is \"centralized\" ultimately at the root level, there is no content or participant level censorship there - the DNS tree is somewhat like a federated namespace AND there will in time be more decentralized namespaces outside of the IANA tree within which one could pin their NIP-05 or LUD-16 ids.\n\nNone of these arguments have convinced the people it needs to (*cough* nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 *cough*) - and to his counter-points, I do somewhat get it).\n\nIt is possible that somebody, someday could propose another NIP entirely for the assertion of NIP-05-like id's (they would look exactly the same) via DNS TXT recs.\n\nIt is not obvious or probable that such a NIP proposal would succeed.\n\nAt the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll refer to my previous article on this sort of thing here (and there are a few threads on Github somewhere):\n\nhttps://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/simplifying-bitcoin-addresses-dns",
"sig": "99751903a989aac26f2324c68d67949aeb601739a7b33c6e7035ec1934ec92f7cd93fc2fc14d269ae0b261796851230010369153abff6a03e9c2831b88c91f4f"
}