The blockchain.

The only thing a blockchain is good for is achieving decentralized consensus on what value a key points to, which is what DNS is.

An alternative way of looking at this is that acquiring domains must be somewhat expensive by definition; either you enforce it at the system level, or you make it free, but then somebody will inevitably grab all the interesting ones and re-sell them to others. A blockchain is the only way to make decentralized financial infrastructure viable.

GNS is the obvious response here, in addition to the various blockchain based solutions. Nothing that enjoys widespread support or mindshare unfortunately.

Even the current centralized ICANN flavor could be substantially more resilient if it instead handed out key fingerprints and semi-permanent addresses when queried. That way it would only ever need to be used as a fallback when the previously queried information failed to resolve.

GP said it was a risk (and it is), not that there are better alternatives. Not all risks can be eliminated easily but you should still be aware of them.

BGP, but the names in question are limited to 128 bits, of which at most 48 will be looked up, and you don't get to choose which 48 bits are assigned to you.

Presumably if LetsEncrypt goes down and stays down for a week, the sites that go down are the ones that see that their CA went down and at no point in the week take the option to get certs from a different CA?

So it seems we need something like this [1] for IT infrastructure? ;)

[1] https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/crashclock/

Let's Encrypt has to be down for days before people begin to feel the pain. DNS is very different, it breaks stuff immediately everywhere.