4 ms·
The answers are correct, but a less cryptographically-related answer: When you go to a website on the regular internet, the name you type into your URL bar doe
by devishard 10y ago
The answers are correct, but a less cryptographically-related answer:
When you go to a website on the regular internet, the name you type into your URL bar doesn't contain any location information. Instead, you go to a Dynamic Name Server (DNS) server (often run by your ISP) and and get the IP address, which tells your browser where to go.
With Tor, the hashes you see are analogous to the IP in regular internet: they tell your browser where to go. But there's no DNS for Tor, so you can't hide address behind a name.
Incidentally, this story is about SciHub being blocked at the DNS level, meaning that the domain https://sci-hub.io/ https://sci-hub.io/ was removed from the DNS servers. But it's still available at the IP level at https://31.184.194.81/ https://31.184.194.81/
This story demonstrates the need for DNS to be decentralized. ICANN has far too much control and is now using it for censorship that holds back the progress of all of humanity.
- oneloop 10y agoSo would a sort of decentralized DNS be possible?
- Uw7yTcf36gTc 10y agocheck out namecoin. they are attempting that, afaik.
- collinmanderson 10y agoThough even if we decentralize DNS, ICANN controls all of the underlying IP addresses.
- mariuolo 10y ago> Though even if we decentralize DNS, ICANN controls all of the underlying IP addresses. IANA would have to un-delegate a whole range from RIPE. I don't see that happening unless they want to fracture the network. Perhaps Elsevier will be able to force ISPs to blacklist that particular IP, but nothing more. I also suspect they will move the domain under a ccTLD, not subject to the whims of ICANN.
- forgotpwtomain 10y agoIt's not ICANN censoring them but their registrar which has pulled the domain. I agree that the ICANN monopoly is a bad thing, but the above statement is somewhat misleading.