9 ms·
This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
by mxuribe 7y ago
This whole situation is ridiculous. We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now.
- squiggleblaz 7y agoThe alternative is your ISP suddenly decides that google.com directs to one of their servers.
- blowski 7y agoI'm pretty sure there's more than one alternative.
- mxuribe 7y agoI've heard of handshake...but were you referring to something else? If so, please share, I'm genuinely curious.
- antsar 7y agoUS ISPs already do this in order to inject ads, which is why you have to use 3rd-party DNS servers. Wouldn’t be anything new.
- mxuribe 7y agoMy isp (Verizon) already"conveniently" provides a landing page whenever I typo a web address(or there us some dns miss, etc.)...so your concept is (sadly) here-and-now, and not a far off thing.
- ukyrgf 7y agoAT&T as well. I still need to put aside a Sunday to figure out how to passthrough their fiber modem/router combo and use my own equipment again.
- mxuribe 7y agoI think I read somewhere that one option is to simply use a different dns provider, but I have not validated this. I, too, need to put aside a day to play with this.
- yourcssisbroke 7y agoyep, it works.
- jedieaston 7y agoFollow these steps to make your router the default host: https://www.att.com/support/smallbusiness/article/smb-internet/KM1188700 https://www.att.com/support/smallbusiness/article/smb-intern... And then plug all of your devices into your router. Easy peasy, albeit not as easy as Comcast’s big bridge mode switch on the modem control panel.
- rasengan 7y ago> We need an alternative to all this centralized control, and we need it now. The Handshake Naming System [1] provides a decentralized option, works directly with the existing legacy system so there will be 0 difficulty in the transition, and it’s usable right now [2]! Just install hsd [3] and point your resolution to localhost to join the movement to an internet owned by the people. [1] https://handshake.org https://handshake.org [2] https://hnscan.com/names https://hnscan.com/names [3] https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd https://github.com/handshake-org/hsd
- jude- 7y agoWhat happens when Ethos starts running their own mining software (or bribes existing miners) in order to jack up prices for .org?
- rasengan 7y agoIn Handshake, rather than renting your domain from .org or .com, you own your tld. This means that nobody will be able to charge you for using your own name. No more rent seeking or getting taxed by a pseudo government of the internet.
- jude- 7y agoAh, so the owner of .org in Handshake is completely unbound by any rules or regulations, and can charge whatever they want for any domains beneath it? Isn't that the entire problem of the .org sale -- the wanna-be new owners want to buy it and then rent-seek on it?
- rasengan 7y agoSince TLD ownership will no longer be difficult (ICANN forces a 185k non refundable application fee just to see if you are eligible with no guarantees), people will have alternatives to .org, should .org continue to do what the people don’t want. The current ICANN system is essentially a monopoly that can raise prices to double revenue without paying mind to what the people of the internet have commented.
- jude- 7y agoI'd argue that the problem is corruption, not (the degree of) centralized control. What we need here is a governance system for TLDs that is hard for a handful of well-connected profit-motivated bad actors to corrupt.
- mxuribe 7y agoIn concept, I believe you're 100% correct. I really, really do. But in real life, I feel it's just enough control and power (that they wield currently) that many people in the same role would be subject to temptation of being corrupted. Hence, not unlike general governing, what we need is control by the many, and not by the aristocratic few.
- kazagistar 7y agoI agree, and will add that radical transparency, in addition to democratic oversight, can counteract corruption. Control by the many, but subject to secret manipulations by the few, is fairly vulnerable to corruption.
- mxuribe 7y agoFully agreed; transparency is absolutely essential.
- naringas 7y agoI would argue that centralized control lends itself to corruption more easily and distributed control. After all, if there exist a central authority, only that one authority being corrupt messes up everything. On the other hand, a distributed scenario makes it more difficult for a handful of well-connected profit-motivated bad actors to corrupt the entire thing. But a distributed set-up is more complex (and more expensive), that's for sure
- jude- 7y agoI would argue that a rich actor can more easily corrupt a large number of small autonomous feifdoms by a combination of bribes, equivocations, and good ol' divide-and-conquer strategies. A low barrier to entry to acquire absolute control over a small but critical piece of Internet routing infrastructure may democratize that infrastructure in theory, but in practice it also lowers the barrier to entry for corruption without some additional system-wide checks and balances. Otherwise, a not-so-rich but enterprising corrupt actor could incrementally buy up the small pieces and use them as leverage to acquire more and more pieces until they own the majority of them.
- anoncake 7y agoNo we don't. There has to be a single DNS, otherwise names are ambiguous which defeats the point.
- mxuribe 7y agoTo clarify: I think we need something different __instead of__ the current centrally control system, and not something __in addition to__. We need change, and not addition.
- troquerre 7y agoThere have been a few comments about Handshake already. I agree that there needs to be a single DNS and not just an “alternative” bc that will fragment the namespace. I think Handshake has the potential to become the DNS that the world uses bc it’s compatible with the traditional system — existing TLDs are blacklisted and the Alexa top 100k have been reserved as TLDs for the domain owners. Given that ICANN isn’t opening the gtld program for 2-3 years and how fast things can grow on the Internet, I think Handshake can become the de facto DNS that everyone uses before there’s a possibility for conflict.
- mxuribe 7y agoFingers crossed; let's hope so!