5 ms·

Freedom isn't free. Web of trust. Inconvenient, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a network that empowers users rather than commercial interests.

by ethbro 7y ago

bin0 7y ago
Hmm. My issue with that is a majority consensus could decide that, for instance, .gov domains should no longer be relegated to the American government. Same issue as with a crypto 51% takeover.
- vageli 7y ago
  > Hmm. My issue with that is a majority consensus could decide that, for instance, .gov domains should no longer be relegated to the American government. Same issue as with a crypto 51% takeover. I'm sure other countries would like to use .gov.
  - bin0 7y ago
    They are entitled to their opinion; I saw a lot of this on the .amazon thread yesterday. However, right now, it's used by America only. There are some perks to inventing the internet. My point is I don't like a system in which the majority can decide they don't like you having something and take it. For instance, what if people decided they didn't like facebook, so decided to seize its domain?
    - vageli 7y ago
      It's used by America only because America made the rules. That's not a great justification for the system as it stands. Are there any examples of longstanding institutions that are _not_ beholden to the will of the many? All things fall if you can get enough people to revolt.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Web of trust is not consensus. Fragmenting and an inability to formulate a standard answer when communicating are serious issues with using it, but a takeover is not. If Chinese users would rather trust some Chinese government entity to resolve URLs, then that's what they'd get. At the same time as other users might get something else.
zaphar 7y ago
The flaw here is that very few of the people who use and enjoy that internet are willing to pay that same price. All is not lost though. You can always opt out and run your own DNS or use hostfiles. Then you can have the internet you want and everyone the can have the internet they want.
zamadatix 7y ago
Other than "not enough people are interested" what is stopping you or any group of people from using such a decentralized system as your primary name resolver today? I.e. if it's not in the web of trust use existing DNS as a fallback and watch it grow. I'm not sure I'd trust such a system to prevent banksite.com from being hijacked but I don't need to for you to.
- adolph 7y ago
  Needs more blockchain
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    https://www.namecoin.org/ https://www.namecoin.org/
KirinDave 7y ago
Wow I've got some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you if you think the "web of trust" actually addressed any credible threat model.
- takeda 7y ago
  Not a threat model, but gives me freedom to decide whom I trust.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    That's precisely what it doesn't do. It's a transitive trust relationship.

Freedom isn't free. Web of trust. Inconvenient, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a network that empowers users rather than commercial interests.

by ethbro 7y ago

Freedom isn't free. Web of trust. Inconvenient, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a network that empowers users rather than commercial interests.

bin0 7y ago

Hmm. My issue with that is a majority consensus could decide that, for instance, .gov domains should no longer be relegated to the American government. Same issue as with a crypto 51% takeover.

vageli 7y ago
> Hmm. My issue with that is a majority consensus could decide that, for instance, .gov domains should no longer be relegated to the American government. Same issue as with a crypto 51% takeover. I'm sure other countries would like to use .gov.
- bin0 7y ago
  They are entitled to their opinion; I saw a lot of this on the .amazon thread yesterday. However, right now, it's used by America only. There are some perks to inventing the internet. My point is I don't like a system in which the majority can decide they don't like you having something and take it. For instance, what if people decided they didn't like facebook, so decided to seize its domain?
  - vageli 7y ago
    It's used by America only because America made the rules. That's not a great justification for the system as it stands. Are there any examples of longstanding institutions that are _not_ beholden to the will of the many? All things fall if you can get enough people to revolt.
ethbro 7y ago
Web of trust is not consensus. Fragmenting and an inability to formulate a standard answer when communicating are serious issues with using it, but a takeover is not. If Chinese users would rather trust some Chinese government entity to resolve URLs, then that's what they'd get. At the same time as other users might get something else.

zaphar 7y ago

The flaw here is that very few of the people who use and enjoy that internet are willing to pay that same price. All is not lost though. You can always opt out and run your own DNS or use hostfiles. Then you can have the internet you want and everyone the can have the internet they want.

zamadatix 7y ago

Other than "not enough people are interested" what is stopping you or any group of people from using such a decentralized system as your primary name resolver today? I.e. if it's not in the web of trust use existing DNS as a fallback and watch it grow. I'm not sure I'd trust such a system to prevent banksite.com from being hijacked but I don't need to for you to.

adolph 7y ago
Needs more blockchain
- godzillabrennus 7y ago
  https://www.namecoin.org/ https://www.namecoin.org/

KirinDave 7y ago

Wow I've got some beachfront property in Nevada to sell you if you think the "web of trust" actually addressed any credible threat model.

takeda 7y ago
Not a threat model, but gives me freedom to decide whom I trust.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  That's precisely what it doesn't do. It's a transitive trust relationship.