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

Avoiding Internet Centralization

mnot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#41

Post by cortesoft »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #40
walrus01 wrote: post #11

Something not really covered is this concept: "Maybe don't let one telecom company acquire too much control". Look at the history of everything that was acquired by either Qwest/CenturyLink or Level3, and then the merger of Level3. You can't tell me that the existence of Lumen, the combined Centurylink-Level3 entity is good for anyone, except for their shareholders. It's the very definition of too much centralization…

Is it? In the UK BT owns all the wires and stuff yet i don't think it majorly affects consumers, nor are their competitiors being crushed.

Depends on how heavily regulated it is

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#42

Post by pabs3 »

tkojames wrote: post #31
lotsofpulp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also need fat upload pipes (i.e. fiber) to individuals’ homes so they can operate their own backup and peer to peer services. When 90%+ of people have no upload capacity at their house, and are behind tons of CGNAT, then onedrive/iCloud/google drive become the only solution for storing your things you can access later. Same with chat protocols.

They just rolled out att fiber into my neighborhood. I was surprised as I live in a older neighborhood. Have overhead power lines talked with att installer and he said that was the reason we go it. Went from 1 gig down 30 mbps upload cable for 100 a month to 70 for gig full up and down and they gave me 400 bucks for signing up. It is pretty awesome having a direct fiber line to the house. My brother lives in Santa Ro…

What equipment does the fiber line plug into? Can you run your own device? Is it PON or AON fiber?

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#43

Post by doublepg23 »

notriddle wrote: post #39
perryizgr8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, isn't torrent magnet links exactly this kind of a system? You can locate files on thousands of peer systems, without using a centralized tracker.

But not human readable, so not a replacement for DNS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle

Can you comment on the proposed solutions in that article?

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#44

Post by AnthonyMouse »

notriddle wrote: post #37
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Even putting aside blockchain-based systems, you can have systems without a dictator because they're based on voting. Suppose the root is a set of public keys, each with a top level domain. Adding one requires a supermajority of the others to agree. Removing one is impossible; it can sign its own successor and that's it. You now have a federated system with no single chokepoint.

> because they're based on voting All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The best methods to protect against Sybil attacks are centralized. The not-best methods use proof of work, which has extreme downsides and only makes Sybil attacks expensive, not impossible.

> All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks.

The voting system is the protection against Sybil attacks. A successful Sybil attack would allow you to add your own TLDs, but if you can't already do that then you can't do a Sybil attack.

The real issue with that kind of system is deciding on the initial group of voters.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#45

Post by mistrial9 »

midasuni wrote: post #17
superkuh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers scaremonger really hard about self-signed SSL certs. And browsers are starting to implement HTTPS only as a default. It won't be too long before HTTP is blocked by mega-corp browsers and not having a CA TLS cert means your website is now un-visitable by non-technical people (and not indexed by search engines).

The concern about http over https is that a bad actor can intercept and change traffic. If you allow self signed certificates, anyone who can MITM traffic can masquerade your site just like with http Self signed does however stop passive fibre taps - to intercept you need to MITM. There then the “remember this cert” option. If I visit www.selfsigned.com on a secure network, my browser remembers the certificate. If I…

this seems to be a well-known list of trusted Certificate Authorities

https://ccadb-public.secure.force.com/mozilla/CAInformationR...

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#46

Post by judge2020 »

pabs3 wrote: post #42
tkojames wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They just rolled out att fiber into my neighborhood. I was surprised as I live in a older neighborhood. Have overhead power lines talked with att installer and he said that was the reason we go it. Went from 1 gig down 30 mbps upload cable for 100 a month to 70 for gig full up and down and they gave me 400 bucks for signing up. It is pretty awesome having a direct fiber line to the house. My brother lives in Santa Ro…

What equipment does the fiber line plug into? Can you run your own device? Is it PON or AON fiber?

AT&T's residential offering requires you use their terminal[0] which is apparently a G-010G-A[1], so PON. They also require you use their own gateway+wifi combo unit[2], although you can do full IP passthrough so that the gateway doesn't even do ipv4 NAT. I have an installation tomorrow and will reply in case the box is a different model.

0: https://www.att.com/support/article/u-verse-high-speed-inter...

1: https://www.ebay.com/itm/164939095713

2: https://forums.att.com/conversations/att-internet-equipment/...

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#47

Post by gerdesj »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #40
walrus01 wrote: post #11

Something not really covered is this concept: "Maybe don't let one telecom company acquire too much control". Look at the history of everything that was acquired by either Qwest/CenturyLink or Level3, and then the merger of Level3. You can't tell me that the existence of Lumen, the combined Centurylink-Level3 entity is good for anyone, except for their shareholders. It's the very definition of too much centralization…

Is it? In the UK BT owns all the wires and stuff yet i don't think it majorly affects consumers, nor are their competitiors being crushed.

See if you can find our ENUM registry and use it.

BT doesn't own our wires as such. OpenReach does (yes they were formally BT but spinned off).

BT or OpenReach - who cares? The important thing is functionality. I'd like to provide you with a novel telephony setup but the lack of ENUM means I am not able to do that.

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#48

Post by [deleted] »

ggm wrote: post #4
nathias wrote: post #3

> Some protocols require the introduction of centralization risk that is unavoidable by nature. For example, when there is a need a single, globally coordinated 'source of truth', that facility is by nature centralized. No, there is nothing unavoidable in making a centralized DNS system.

You convert a single point of truth to a set of the point of truth and a voting system. The current cryptographically signed model uses a single signing authority. I suppose you could argue for multiple independent signing but it begs the question how you arrived at what was to be signed. That's a process to a unitary decision.

[deleted]

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#49

Post by judge2020 »

midasuni wrote: post #24
foxfluff wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LE also forces you to rely on DNS, which is highly centralized..

How is DNS centralised?

All roads lead to . [0], ie. IANA. Many IANA-approved entities run them[1], but they all only resolve TLDs ICANN authorizes (and those TLD operators control what domains are registered under their TLD, of course).

0: https://dns.google/query?name=.&rr_type=NS&ecs=

1: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/servers

Re: Avoiding Internet Centralization

#50

Post by serverholic »

walrus01 wrote: post #11

Something not really covered is this concept: "Maybe don't let one telecom company acquire too much control". Look at the history of everything that was acquired by either Qwest/CenturyLink or Level3, and then the merger of Level3. You can't tell me that the existence of Lumen, the combined Centurylink-Level3 entity is good for anyone, except for their shareholders. It's the very definition of too much centralization…

Starlink should help with this by bypassing traditional networks.
Post reply on HN