Thank you @jyezie I actually agree with your first point. The authors agree too. The issues DNS have are quite heightened in BNS solutions because of the very same qualities that give blockchain technology its hype. I’m talking about immutability here and transparency. Everyone sees everything. Then, take the record persistence issue that was raised. On DNS, we knew it was alarming that someone could register your name if you were late with your domain name renewal. But on BNS solutions, your domain name as well as your metadata is at risk. You can unregister a name but only while you are still in control of it. And even though the name would be unregistered, the records still show that you owned the name during that time. It is never erased. There’s also more motivation for domain squatting seeing as .eth names are actually NFTs. People want to collect them.
In response to your second question, yes, the use of .eth names on Twitter is quite a spectacle. I would insert a laughing emoji if I could. But we cannot deny that the first point of ENS names was to give blockchain addresses human readable names. If I might say, give people in web3 more readable identities. Just like how we now have domain names for the internet after the era of IP addresses. Anyone showing their .eth names on Twitter is just helping champion the cause.
However, the main selling point I see with ENS and other BNS solutions is the quality of decentralisation. That elimination of intermediaries. You have full control. Asides being in control of your own domain name, you could also directly create, manage, and sell subdomain names to others. You could reclaim these subdomain names in case of any breach. That is a lot of independence. When you combine ENS and IPFS, the decentralised file storage system, censorship resistant websites actually seem possible.
So as always with technology there’s always the good and the bad. It all depends on how we answer and act on these kind of questions.