It can't possibly work, if you want your nicer domain to be globally unique.
If you don't, it depends on how local your domain needs to be; maybe all you need is a record in /etc/hosts on your home router.
If you don't, it depends on how local your domain needs to be; maybe all you need is a record in /etc/hosts on your home router.
This can work, and sounds like a good compromise in that it lets machines and people who care deeply about security use your secure name (which is more portable than an IP address), while providing a human friendly name for people who don't care and just want things to work.
In a nutshell, we expect that resolvers would ship with a (large) set of default "suffix-to-zone" mappings, that can be overridden by the user to provide a usable and convenient out-of-the box experience. Not that "we expect" means that this would be the ideal scenario, not something to expect when installing our reference implementation right now.
Because if globally unique, human-readable DNS still works, I see no point in migrating off it. If the point is smoother migration, then we should start forgetting about human-readability, because it's going to disappear anyway.
If we wanted to go away from centralization here, that would require a serious breakthrough, the magnitude of Bitcoin.
The "nicer" domain I am referring to would be a normal domain from a registrar.