There's been plenty of action, but you can't turn the whole world on a dime.
Namecoin is fantastic in theory, but has the fatal flaw of using Bitcoin: the fastest number cruncher wins. Some would argue that the strength of Bitcoin's tech is that numerous currencies with different genesis blocks can flourish. That doesn't get us anywhere with naming, though.
Dead horse flog: the CA model's problem is that you can't do federated (global) naming and federated trust in the same system.
What's the issue with that? It's reasonable to assume that the good number crunchers will always have more power than the bad number crunchers, and if that assumption ever fails, it's easy to detect and we're simply back to CA levels of security.
Philosophically, "good number crunchers" just means "tyranny of the majority."
Environmentally, that number crunching is a colossal waste of energy. We don't need to base our entire economy on that kind of energy footprint just because we occasionally want to make anonymous global barter convenient.
Namecoin is fantastic in theory, but has the fatal flaw of using Bitcoin: the fastest number cruncher wins. Some would argue that the strength of Bitcoin's tech is that numerous currencies with different genesis blocks can flourish. That doesn't get us anywhere with naming, though.
Dead horse flog: the CA model's problem is that you can't do federated (global) naming and federated trust in the same system.