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

Save .org

savedotorg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#291

Post by colordrops »

gregmac wrote: post #238
colordrops wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Islands already exist, with national firewalls, corporate networks, dark nets, etc. Decentralization of DNS would just take middlemen out of the picture. A dominant decentralized system would probably handle most requests if one were to ever get off the ground, making it equivalent to what we have now.

> Islands already exist, with national firewalls, corporate networks, dark nets And you don't see companies posting their addresses on those things. They still advertise "example.org" not "if you're in {county} use {county-specific address}, or on Tor use {onion address} or using {decentralized DNS} use example.com". > A dominant decentralized system How does this result in a different situation then the "centralized…

> How does this result in a different situation then the "centralized" DNS we have today?

If, for instance, the DNS entries were tied to entries in a blockchain, such as namecoin, then no 3rd party would be involved in a transaction to transfer the domain, no annual fees would be required, and no one could block or remove an entry.

Re: Save .org

#292

Post by byuu »

nine_k wrote: post #290
byuu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

(1) There exists a blockchain-based, decentralized DNS lookalike: https://handshake.org/ (2) Every major OS has has a way to plug an alternative DNS resolver (except maybe iOS), and every major browser has a control to switch off the DNS-over-https resolver. With any goodwill from the major mobile OS vendors, a new resolver could be rolled out to 99% of consumer devices or so, and work transparently. (3) A new name r…

Anything that doesn't work out-of-the-box is dead on arrival, though. I would never be willing to move my domain from .org to a system that people couldn't get to without installing additional software (eg OpenNIC.) But if every OS and/or every major browser supported OpenNIC, then I'd be willing to make the switch.

Re: Save .org

#293

Post by byuu »

oefrha wrote: post #213
clarry wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by "TLD outside of ICANN's control", GP meant a unique TLD that (currently) does not exist under ICANN. So it's not going to be byuu.org under ICANN vs byuu.org under LR, it's going to be byuu.lr (under LR) versus byuu.org (under ICANN)?

Yeah I misread. Then it's gonna be subject to good old squatting and hoarding (vastly more so if free) as I mentioned, and not really solve anything.

The hope is to get a non-corrupt TLD in place that won't raise prices on you with no caps (and if possible while we're at it, won't charge you for certificate signing.) Ideally, a real winner would be a pay-once, own-for-life (say 100 years) TLD. I might be willing to drop $500 on a domain I know I'll never have to remember to renew.

Re: Save .org

#294

Post by vinniejames »

byuu wrote: post #198
tldmanagement wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway account. I worked at one of the main TLDs for years and was on one of the ICANN boards and got to know the industry well. It is well know amongst the domain name community that ICANN is a poorly run organization, whose directors have in recent years have used their position of leadership to lead decisions from which they are afterwards benefiting themselves economically, in many cases by rush…

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

"but a blockchain-like system could remove the central authority, the server costs, and the lawsuit risks" This already exists, check out [ENS domains](https://ens.domains/) running on the Ethereum blockchain. They can be mapped to [IPFS](https://IPFS.io) hosted sites

Re: Save .org

#295

Post by nine_k »

byuu wrote: post #292
nine_k wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) There exists a blockchain-based, decentralized DNS lookalike: https://handshake.org/ (2) Every major OS has has a way to plug an alternative DNS resolver (except maybe iOS), and every major browser has a control to switch off the DNS-over-https resolver. With any goodwill from the major mobile OS vendors, a new resolver could be rolled out to 99% of consumer devices or so, and work transparently. (3) A new name r…

Anything that doesn't work out-of-the-box is dead on arrival, though. I would never be willing to move my domain from .org to a system that people couldn't get to without installing additional software (eg OpenNIC.) But if every OS and/or every major browser supported OpenNIC, then I'd be willing to make the switch.

Indeed. My point is that supporting an additional name resolution system is mostly a political problem, and technically doable.without forcing people to even upgrade their OS, phone, or browser.

Re: Save .org

#296

Post by mikedilger »

duskwuff wrote: post #288
mikedilger wrote: post #285

Existing .org domains they can't move without overwhelming disruption, so most will just pay whatever it costs. But for the future, we need to move the Internet towards having peering relationships with TLDs such as OpenNIC.net. Motivations: * This issue of .org being sold for profit * The fact that OpenNIC had to rename their TLD domains (e.g. .free to .libre) when ICANN created a colliding .free domain, demonstrati…

OpenNIC is a poorly managed amateur project, built on shoddy infrastructure that was thrown together in the early 2000s -- it's completely incapable of acting as any kind of peer to the ICANN root. In particular: - Their resolvers are not consistently available. Many of them are hosted on public cloud hosts (which also raises some questions about their security), and outages are not uncommon. - It's not clear that th…

Most of your points are valid. That's why I'm suggesting Mozilla support it. It would be a lot less "shoddy" if someone shepherded it. I think it is the right idea.

The last point is only true because they aren't recognized, which recognition would immediately fix, therefore it is moot.

Re: Save .org

#297

Post by hyperman1 »

C14L wrote: post #221
cnorthwood wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It possibly fits within the portfolio of the ITU (although I guess the UN is intergovernmental, rather than a government).

That has been proposed for as long as I can remember. The result would be that dictatorships and authoritarian governments control the internet, because they make up the majority in the ITU. I don't think we want that.

Can you explain this a bit more? Afaik the ITU does a good if boring job. I can phone about anybody in the world. The system works.

Now ICANN? They seem a bad choice, as this story demonstrates. Tolerable as long as the internet wasnt very important, but today, a UN international body seems the obvious choice.

Re: Save .org

#298

Post by Tharkun »

jdnenej wrote: post #280
hultner wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers shouldn't be the entity deciding on address resolution, a domain system bound only to the web/httpx would be a huge leap backwards. This should be up to the os and whatever names resolution the os provides should be happily accepted by any network program, be it a browser, email client, ssh, irc or something completely different.

Browsers are the only ones actually willing to allow any change. If we wait for OSs to change nothing will ever happen. If it works well in browsers first then the OS will pick it up.

That's because there's no need for change. DNS works pretty well. There are various options to secure DNS, so that part of the DoH is also moot.

Browsers should respect the OS instead of trying to circumvent it.

Lastly, DNS is properly decentralized out of the box. I don't get that some people who argue for a decentralized internet also argue for DoH.

Re: Save .org

#299

Post by anticensor »

School-Cotton wrote: post #111
behringer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until you see what they have planned for the airwaves next!

TBH I’d be happy for the (AM/FM radio) airwaves to be privatized if it meant getting rid of the absurd, antiquated rules about not being able to say certain words in song lyrics.

Anyone freely interfering at high power would be dangerous for everyone.

Re: Save .org

#300

Post by CodiePetersen »

byuu wrote: post #198
tldmanagement wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway account. I worked at one of the main TLDs for years and was on one of the ICANN boards and got to know the industry well. It is well know amongst the domain name community that ICANN is a poorly run organization, whose directors have in recent years have used their position of leadership to lead decisions from which they are afterwards benefiting themselves economically, in many cases by rush…

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

In case anyone is wondering there is a blockchain that was made for such a reason. It's called namecoin. It spawned a project called chimera which was renamed xaya. In xaya the idea is you can reserve a name and the name has an alterable 2048 byte space for json data that you can update every block if you wish.

Namecoin though has always been around to reserve names and in particular domain names.

Post reply on HN