4 ms·
It's compelling for DNS and CA replacement tech
by mhluongo 7y ago
It's compelling for DNS and CA replacement tech
- RL_Quine 7y agoIt's not really that applicable there either. NameCoin attempted this in 2010 and ran into some serious engineering issues with non-obvious outcomes. It's not reasonable for every device to store the multi gigabyte UTXO, so delegation to DNS revolvers is necessary on some level. Ideally you'd be able to do something with attestation to prove that the results came from the blockchain itself, but you can not. Due to the UTXO design in Namecoin, you can attest that a particular record existed, but you can't ever compactly prove it exists. This distinction is important because it means that you as the client have no way of knowing if a returned result is stale and has been changed to something entirely different.
- skitout 7y agoYou don't necessary need to download a multi gigabyte UTXO anymore :) Blockchain tech is young and a lot of thing are going on - and 2010 was prehistory for blockchain
- mhluongo 7y agoYou've missed years of development. Zero-knowledge attestations of name records given a particular blockheight are quite doable.
- m82labs 7y agoHow is it compelling for DNS? (Asking honestly) Any article I have attempted to read is full of non-informations and vague generalizations.
- verdverm 7y agohandshake.org is a better iteration on BC for DNS for example... the sale of the .org TLD