I actually wouldn't mind you going into detail about why naming systems like ENS do not benefit from being on a blockchain, as they seem to me to be one of the more obvious use cases.
If the default path of technology were such that our current DNS system were based on a blockchain smart contract system, and then someone proposed a new system with single points of failure, reliant on trusted recursive resolvers, registrar middlemen, a trusted root zone for every country, and a tacked-on CA system that requires fully trusting N-of-N organizations dotted across every jurisdiction on the globe whose job is to verify address resolution from multiple network perspectives, plus OCSP and CT servers to enforce revocations and maintain certificate history - both of which are problems directly caused by a non-blockchain system design - they would be laughed out.
With ENS:
* The blockchain itself is the root of trust, because every name entry has an associated owner entry and every owner entry has a public key entry, which can be used to encrypt and authenticate content.
* Name resolution can be performed by anyone running the client software, by connecting to anyone else running the client software.
* Users can register names directly by using a piece of software, without requiring registrar companies.
* The whole system can be built within a single root zone, because no parties need to be trusted to host the system on privileged servers.
* In practice the system is highly distributed and available, so has had 100.00% uptime for all zones since launch, a higher uptime than DNS.
If you want to go into "extreme detail", now is the time. Please tell me why I am wrong.
If the default path of technology were such that our current DNS system were based on a blockchain smart contract system, and then someone proposed a new system with single points of failure, reliant on trusted recursive resolvers, registrar middlemen, a trusted root zone for every country, and a tacked-on CA system that requires fully trusting N-of-N organizations dotted across every jurisdiction on the globe whose job is to verify address resolution from multiple network perspectives, plus OCSP and CT servers to enforce revocations and maintain certificate history - both of which are problems directly caused by a non-blockchain system design - they would be laughed out.
With ENS:
* The blockchain itself is the root of trust, because every name entry has an associated owner entry and every owner entry has a public key entry, which can be used to encrypt and authenticate content.
* Name resolution can be performed by anyone running the client software, by connecting to anyone else running the client software.
* Users can register names directly by using a piece of software, without requiring registrar companies.
* The whole system can be built within a single root zone, because no parties need to be trusted to host the system on privileged servers.
* In practice the system is highly distributed and available, so has had 100.00% uptime for all zones since launch, a higher uptime than DNS.
If you want to go into "extreme detail", now is the time. Please tell me why I am wrong.