You've reinvented the HOSTS file, which used to be manually updated by John Postel or someone and passed around the internet before DNS was invented.
[deleted]
DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
41–50 of 69 posts
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#42DNS over immutable record? What could go wrong?
I cant be the only one who just saw the article about how bitcoin is racing against quantum computers to implement quantum-resistant cryptography.
If bitcoin loses? It will be possible for quantum-equipped malicious actors to crack someone's private key during the 10 minute interval between transaction-groups and redirect the money.
10 minutes to hack DNS? Sounds like a handout to hackers to me.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#43The article explains the censorship resistance aspect but not the security. How does Handshake deal with the things Cloudflare does for me? DDoS and WAF protection, at least?
Firewalls and DDOS protection have nothing at all to do with name resolution. These are routing concerns that require taking a deep look into the packets (DPI), while name resolution and key exchange are prior steps.
Also, what does CloudFlare bring to you? 99% of websites don't need DDOS protection or a complex firewall. Using CloudFlare for these websites means:
- CloudFlare gets to inspect and snoop 100% of your "HTTPS" trafic (because the TLS termination happens on their side)
- Users without Javascript (command-line browsers or GUI browsers disabling JS for performance/security concerns) cannot access your website
- Tor users most times cannot access your services at all because CloudFlare and Google work hand-in-hand to prevent them from using the web by serving infinite CAPTCHA loops (see #FuckCloudFlare)
- CloudFlare becomes a SPOF for much of the web, like other "cloud" providers ; accessing your website depends on the availability and good will of a huge multinational
So if you want to help people access the Internet without censorship and surveillance, please never use CloudFlare or equivalent services. They make everything so much worse through centralization. If we wait too much, it will become a HUGE problem.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#44So, NameCoin again? I think it was the first ever bitcoin fork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
Indeed, this was my first thought when I read the title, and IMO, it still remains the other obious killer app. for blockchain (besides store of value / currency, obviously).
Namecoin is an idea (that failed because IMO it was too early) so old by now that I am truly surprised there hasn't been a full blown distributed DNS solution that works in parallel to the existing one based on blockchain.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#45Yes, DNS should be like the old phone book — published regularly, pick one up anywhere & everywhere, look things up anonymously (granted, authenticity guarantees were somewhat lacking). My question - Sure blockchain can do this, but couldn’t a simpler DHT-based p2p system would work just as well or better? I like the distributed/anonymity/authenticity, but why is blockchain required?
Because any random local dictatorship, be it the FBI or Kim-Jong can decide what does and does not go in the book.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#46question—can’t a government actor like china just watch the record for where it points to and just filter that address? doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of this uncensorability? while it may be harder in the US i could legitimately see a mechanism developing to make that a requirement for isps
They can, and do, already do this for regular DNS. This would prevent US-style domain name seizures but would do nothing against actual competent censorship.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#47DoB will have to deal with some problems, especially bad actors; people will squat on domains, register typos (fscebook.com) or even bitflips (fabebook.com, b is one bitflip from c). Malware owners will run their C&C servers on domains. Malicious domains will require someone removing them or blocking them even, unless you want the DoB namespace to turn into a cesspool of malware, phishing and nazis. Not something the…
You could probably say the same thing about DNS right before it was introduced to the mainstream.
DNS was introduced when a centrally managed /etc/hosts file was no longer feasible, it was a simple solution to a problem that fairly few people (mostly computer researchers) had. It solved the problem and not much more.
Computers weren't mainstream when DNS was invented.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#48DoB will have to deal with some problems, especially bad actors; people will squat on domains, register typos (fscebook.com) or even bitflips (fabebook.com, b is one bitflip from c). Malware owners will run their C&C servers on domains. Malicious domains will require someone removing them or blocking them even, unless you want the DoB namespace to turn into a cesspool of malware, phishing and nazis. Not something the…
You either have the freedom of decentralization and all the benefits and drawbacks that comes with it, or you have our current system with the ability to centrally manage but then you depend on those large, centralized entities to do an impartial job. And we know that nobody is impartial.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#49What is the proof? That the domain owner signed it with a certain key? Is that key shared out-of-band? If so why do we even need the blockchain?
Yes, the proof would be some sort of signature. No, public key cryptography means that the key doesn't need to be shared. A blockchain is only needed if parties need to write to the database in a decentralized manner, and the order of the writes is important & can't be tampered with.
The public key still needs to be shared.
Re: DNS-on-Blockchain is the next step after DNS-over-HTTPS
#50DoB will have to deal with some problems, especially bad actors; people will squat on domains, register typos (fscebook.com) or even bitflips (fabebook.com, b is one bitflip from c). Malware owners will run their C&C servers on domains. Malicious domains will require someone removing them or blocking them even, unless you want the DoB namespace to turn into a cesspool of malware, phishing and nazis. Not something the…
You either have the freedom of decentralization and all the benefits and drawbacks that comes with it, or you have our current system with the ability to centrally manage but then you depend on those large, centralized entities to do an impartial job. And we know that nobody is impartial.
Why is it always so black-and-white with blockchain people?
There is no reason we can't deploy something that takes the good parts of decentralized operation without having to commit to a full P2P blockchain IoT buzzword fiasko.