61–70 of 92 posts
I am using namecoin to resolve bittorrent sync secrets in my distributed browser Syncnet: https://github.com/jminardi/syncnet It was fairly easy to integrate
Why not use the open source Clearskies instead of BTSync? https://github.com/jewel/clearskies
Note that you can use namecoin blockchain with your DNS and HTTP tools with dnschain [0]. Check this out: $ dig @dns.dnschain.net okturtles.bit $ curl http://dns.dnschain.net/d/okturtles Both of them will resolve to whatever info is stored in d/okturtles domain. With the (soon-to-be) DANE support (for those who forgot: DANE is about distributing TLS keys through a channel you trust (it comes from the domain you're vi…
Only to the extent that you and your visitors already have to trust your DNS provider, your domain registrar, the TLD registry, and the DNS root. Neither DANE nor DNSSEC intrinsically solve anything that hasn't already been solved for end users... particularly when you consider forwarders will have to accept unsigned zones for years to come.
Namecoin etc does go some way to "squaring Zooko's triangle" (as many good minds have discussed already) but proof-of-work chains have their own burdens, and are not any more immune to the lure of trading robustness and security for convenience than traditional DNS forwarders, online DNSSEC signing, or webmasters offering up their SSL certificates up to CDNs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The telegraph, MySpace, and AOL had network effects. It's a hurdle, but it's not insurmountable. The question is whether namecoin provides anything sufficiently more appealing to all players to overcome that headwind...
As it stands now, a domain name owner in the current system probably has more risk from domain hijacking than authoritarian censorship. So the main feature of Namecoin - to provide a censorship-resistant, cryptographically untamperable set of domain name records - is also its biggest disadvantage, as recovery of any stolen domain names is entirely up to the goodwill of the thief. This reason alone would make it very…
And the above means zilch to the majority (let's pick an arbitrary 95%) of domain name owners (source: I am intimately involved in this business since the start and deal with these owners)
Do people seriously think that the millions of existing domain name owners are going to undo years of marketing effort for something that they don't even need? Local restaurant for example has no issues with censorship at least with respect to their website.
Could we just get rid of naming authorities all together? Why not just let trusted listing agencies handle it and users can simply pick the one(s) they wish to use. For instance, let's say I want to publish a website under the name "sony". Okay, that's fine, but it's going to get a lower priority then the offical Sony, Inc. site b/c any listing agency is obviously going to serve up that site when a user puts "sony" i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As it stands now, a domain name owner in the current system probably has more risk from domain hijacking than authoritarian censorship. So the main feature of Namecoin - to provide a censorship-resistant, cryptographically untamperable set of domain name records - is also its biggest disadvantage, as recovery of any stolen domain names is entirely up to the goodwill of the thief. This reason alone would make it very…
"So the main feature of Namecoin - to provide a censorship-resistant, cryptographically untamperable set of domain name records" And the above means zilch to the majority (let's pick an arbitrary 95%) of domain name owners (source: I am intimately involved in this business since the start and deal with these owners) Do people seriously think that the millions of existing domain name owners are going to undo years of…
It's an interesting experiment though.
I am using namecoin to resolve bittorrent sync secrets in my distributed browser Syncnet: https://github.com/jminardi/syncnet It was fairly easy to integrate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you could not register those names. Because they are already registered. They could ask very nicely for ownership of them, or perhaps send you a court order depending on what country the both of you were located in. But unless you provide them with the private key or fail to renew your registration... nobody should ever gain control of any .bit domain. A Kraken.com dev looking into the namecoin code found a flaw…
> No, you could not register those names. Because they are already registered. Who are they registered by?
I am using namecoin to resolve bittorrent sync secrets in my distributed browser Syncnet: https://github.com/jminardi/syncnet It was fairly easy to integrate
Stupid question: does resolving a Namecoin domain name involve downloading the whole blockchain or is it handled by third party servers?
Given the news around bitcoin one could imagine that stealing 'google.bit' out of the google wallet[1] would be a pretty lucrative target. [1] No I don't really think Google would let that happen but Bob's Bakery Buns might and it could cost him his business.