Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

privateinternetaccess.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#11

Post by deweller »

mugsie wrote: post #5

Yeah, because I want to have to mine a token every time I update my DNS settings. -_- I get the "global, transparent, append only log" appeal, but for the reality of most people, I don't want to rely on a blockchain converging, or processing my update in a certain amount of time. And that doesn't even cover companies (I don't agree with this, but it is a reality), that consider DNS entries private, and don't want to…

If this gains traction, you will be able to pay a service provider a fee to update DNS entries for you. This is like the current system used by registrars. You don't need to care if it is powered by a blockchain in the background if you don't want to.

I think it is great to have an alternative DNS system that is more censorship resistant.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#12

Post by rasengan »

ryandvm wrote: post #3

Kind of unrelated, but if there was ever a viable use case for blockchain beyond anarchist payment systems, it seems like it would be DNS.

Totally agree. Another great thing about Handshake is the fact that this removes the need to rely on SSL CAs which have seen compromises time and time again.

No more rogue SSL certificates!

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#13

Post by jude- »

deweller wrote: post #8
briatx wrote: post #6

DNS has always been decentralized. I mean, first sentence on wikipedia: > The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical and decentralized naming system for computers, services, or other resources connected to the Internet or a private network.

From the article: > While DNS is already fairly decentralized, the centralization exists because of ICANN’s gatekeeper control .... ICANN ultimately has control over what internet names are acceptable – and serves as a singular point of failure.

Nothing stops you or anyone from running your own DNS root. The "hard part" of making a global DNS deployment operational isn't developing the technology; it's getting everyone to agree on all the particulars of the deployment.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#14

Post by ryacko »

If something is worth stealing, then it would be. The majority of code isn’t infrastructure quality (equivalent to setting cement and leaving it there for a hundred years with minor maintenance). Until then, the technical flaws must be balanced with collective governance.

(Incidentally, cement with such long lifespans were widely used during the Roman Empire)

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#15

Post by mugsie »

deweller wrote: post #11
mugsie wrote: post #5

Yeah, because I want to have to mine a token every time I update my DNS settings. -_- I get the "global, transparent, append only log" appeal, but for the reality of most people, I don't want to rely on a blockchain converging, or processing my update in a certain amount of time. And that doesn't even cover companies (I don't agree with this, but it is a reality), that consider DNS entries private, and don't want to…

If this gains traction, you will be able to pay a service provider a fee to update DNS entries for you. This is like the current system used by registrars. You don't need to care if it is powered by a blockchain in the background if you don't want to. I think it is great to have an alternative DNS system that is more censorship resistant.

> you will be able to pay a service provider a fee to update DNS entries for you.

So every time I add a new LB, or cycle out an environment I have to pay someone? And then wait for them to process the chain to publish the result?

Remind me, what did etherium get to for transactons to clear? 20 something hours? That is not something I want when I am trying to redirect traffic from either a set of NS records that are broken, or if I host the full zone in the chain, a broken AWS / Azure region.

Combine the time to wait for caches to refresh on the internets (better these days, but still longer than people would like), with waiting for a blockchain to publish my new records, and you have ops people in pain.

DNS is already one of the largest fault tolerant, eventually consistent, cachable, federated, and globally distributed key value databases ever to exist - we don't need to add blockchain to the mix.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#16

Post by mugsie »

rasengan wrote: post #10
mugsie wrote: post #5

Yeah, because I want to have to mine a token every time I update my DNS settings. -_- I get the "global, transparent, append only log" appeal, but for the reality of most people, I don't want to rely on a blockchain converging, or processing my update in a certain amount of time. And that doesn't even cover companies (I don't agree with this, but it is a reality), that consider DNS entries private, and don't want to…

You don’t need to store the zone on chain - you can actually simply include NS records and have your authoritative server elsewhere - just like DNS today!

then I don't see the point, other than a set of tlds that half the people in the world won't be able to access ...

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#17

Post by rasengan »

mugsie wrote: post #16
rasengan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to store the zone on chain - you can actually simply include NS records and have your authoritative server elsewhere - just like DNS today!

then I don't see the point, other than a set of tlds that half the people in the world won't be able to access ...

The DNS ROOT becomes controlled by the people instead of ICANN - it’s the end of ceased and censored domains.

Additionally, HNS also fixes the problems the CA system has today. CAs can generate certificates for any domain - even if the domain owner didn’t request it. This has led to countless occurrences of abuse.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#18

Post by zeroxfe »

briatx wrote: post #6

DNS has always been decentralized. I mean, first sentence on wikipedia: > The Domain Name System (DNS) is a hierarchical and decentralized naming system for computers, services, or other resources connected to the Internet or a private network.

Decentralization can occur across many axes -- our public DNS infrastructure, for example, does not have decentralized registration or governance, which is what matters for things like privacy or censorship resistance.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#19

Post by StavrosK »

mugsie wrote: post #5

Yeah, because I want to have to mine a token every time I update my DNS settings. -_- I get the "global, transparent, append only log" appeal, but for the reality of most people, I don't want to rely on a blockchain converging, or processing my update in a certain amount of time. And that doesn't even cover companies (I don't agree with this, but it is a reality), that consider DNS entries private, and don't want to…

Isn't this middlebrow dismissal? Like, I get that you don't want to have to "mine a token" if "mining a token" means "waiting half an hour", but if it means "waiting 100ms or paying $0.00001", I'd take that tradeoff to own my DNS.

Re: Decentralized DNS with the Handshake Naming System

#20

Post by crediblewitness »

danShumway wrote: post #9

The article and Namebase faq go into some details, but just so I understand, what are the practical effects of this beyond decentralization? - If I buy a TLD, will I own it in perpetuity, even after I die? - If we're encouraging people to register their own TLDs, won't we run into the same limited-name/squatter problems as normal domains? I get that names are being released at a trickle, but that seems like it would…

> - If I buy a TLD, will I own it in perpetuity, even after I die?

No, if you don't send a renewal transaction, the name goes up for auction again.

> - Is this going to have the same environmental problems as Bitcoin, or will having fewer transactions mean that's less of an issue?

Yes, it's proof of work

> I'm not necessarily feeling great about the idea of having separate TLDs for every site

TLD owners manage the namespace as they see fit. that includes issuing/selling/giving away sub-domains. .

Post reply on HN