5 ms·

> There are all sorts of real-world issues that you can't handle on-chain. There are definitely a lot of issues that aren’t working in the ICANN system as we a

> There are all sorts of real-world issues that you can't handle on-chain. There are definitely a lot of issues that aren’t working in the ICANN system as we all know [1][2][3]. What are the issues that can’t be handled in the Handshake blockchain ecosystem? [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/registrars-raise-alarm-over-proposal-for-big-com-fee-hikes/%3Famp%3D1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbitrary-censorship-halting-private-equity-buy-out https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/12/we-need-save-org-arbit... [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/symantec-issues-rogue-ev-certificate-googlecom https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/09/symantec-issues-rogue-...

acdha 7y ago
It’s easy to say that a hypothetical system will do everything you want, similar to how Bitcoin salespeople spent most of a decade saying it’d be better than cash and credit cards before trying to claim they’d had different goals all along. You first need a system which works and scales to plausible levels before we can say anything about whether it’s a viable solution for anything. In particular, it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control — and the inherent inefficiency of a blockchain means that there’d be more of a likelihood that power would consolidate in a few major players. (As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be?)
- rasengan 7y ago
  > similar to how Bitcoin salespeople spent most of a decade saying it’d be better than cash and credit cards before trying to claim they’d had different goals all along. As someone following Bitcoin for a long time since just after genesis, I can assure you that replacing cash and credit cards was never on the original agenda but instead a byproduct of the goal. Make no mistake, the goal was always to decentralize currency and give the “power” of money back to the people. That said, in a decentralized system, there can be more than one goal and goals do not need to be unified across participants. That freedom is one of the beauties of decentralization. As long as a third party central authority controls our money system, we will always be subject to the whims of the few. Bitcoin is helping to liberate us and it’s absolutely working. > it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control This exists by virtue of our trust in cryptography - which for me is absolute. > As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be? Less directly and more by way of overall system architecture, the separation of DNS and “truth” has caused many issues to the Internet. It’s relevant because Handshake finally combines DNS and truth [1] by essentially completing the once incomplete DNSSEC. [1] https://github.com/handshake-org/hdns https://github.com/handshake-org/hdns
  - presumably 7y ago
    > As long as a third party central authority controls our money system, we will always be subject to the whims of the few. Bitcoin is helping to liberate us and it’s absolutely working. A bold claim without evidence. In fact, the opposite may be true [1]. This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2]. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitcoin-whales-1-000-people-who-own-40-percent-of-the-market https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco... [2]: https://thebitcoinnews.com/study-argues-chinese-mining-centralization-poses-threat-to-bitcoin-network/ https://thebitcoinnews.com/study-argues-chinese-mining-centr...
    - rasengan 7y ago
      > A bold claim without evidence. In fact, the opposite may be true [1]. > [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitcoin-whales-1-000-people-who-own-40-percent-of-the-market https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco... The same can be said about any money system in a capitalist economy (e.g., 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the US [1.1]). > This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2]. I'm not sure this is 'looming' today as the article boldly claims, but centralization is definitely a risk. It's important for everyone to participate in the system as they can for a more equal distribution of ownership - akin to how one should exercise their vote in US elections. [1.1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
  - _jal 7y ago
    I disagree with the claims about effectiveness, but this is otherwise correct. Bitcoin emerged from the Cypherpunks crowd; while nobody has positively IDed the 'real' author of the paper, the ideological motivations are rooted in anarcho-capitalist thought. The operative theory is really not that different than Grover Norquist's; attack the tax base and the state withers. Grover is just less ambitious. The flaw in the bitcoin thesis is that the internet is powerful tool of centralized control and reinforces authoritarians, not the opposite.
notahacker 7y ago
> What are the issues that can’t be handled in the Handshake blockchain ecosystem? From the handshake FAQ: 'There are no social or technical guarantees with the renewability or ownership, this is an experimental system, please read the code to see details of how it currently works'. That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached...
- rasengan 7y ago
  > That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached... The blockchain auctions domains off to the highest bidder thru a blind Vickrey auction [1] wherein the winner pays the amount of the second highest bid. After the auction completes, the coins are burned (provably destroyed). Both the legacy ICANN system and new TLDs on Handshake [2] are working together in harmony. To be clear, everything on the internet including the internet itself started as an experiment. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction [2] https://dns.live https://dns.live - Domain Adoption
- tasuki 7y ago
  > That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. The hns paid for winning an auction are destroyed. > There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached. Handshake is anything but a short term profit-maximization scheme! The Handshake developers took $10 million of VC money and donated it to free and open source foundations: https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/ https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/

acdha 7y ago

It’s easy to say that a hypothetical system will do everything you want, similar to how Bitcoin salespeople spent most of a decade saying it’d be better than cash and credit cards before trying to claim they’d had different goals all along. You first need a system which works and scales to plausible levels before we can say anything about whether it’s a viable solution for anything. In particular, it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control — and the inherent inefficiency of a blockchain means that there’d be more of a likelihood that power would consolidate in a few major players. (As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be?)

rasengan 7y ago
> similar to how Bitcoin salespeople spent most of a decade saying it’d be better than cash and credit cards before trying to claim they’d had different goals all along. As someone following Bitcoin for a long time since just after genesis, I can assure you that replacing cash and credit cards was never on the original agenda but instead a byproduct of the goal. Make no mistake, the goal was always to decentralize currency and give the “power” of money back to the people. That said, in a decentralized system, there can be more than one goal and goals do not need to be unified across participants. That freedom is one of the beauties of decentralization. As long as a third party central authority controls our money system, we will always be subject to the whims of the few. Bitcoin is helping to liberate us and it’s absolutely working. > it’d be important to have real cost and control information to show that it wasn’t trading ICANN for a different group which has similar control This exists by virtue of our trust in cryptography - which for me is absolute. > As an aside, Symantec screwing up does not seem relevant to a discussion about ICANN. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it to be? Less directly and more by way of overall system architecture, the separation of DNS and “truth” has caused many issues to the Internet. It’s relevant because Handshake finally combines DNS and truth [1] by essentially completing the once incomplete DNSSEC. [1] https://github.com/handshake-org/hdns https://github.com/handshake-org/hdns
- presumably 7y ago
  > As long as a third party central authority controls our money system, we will always be subject to the whims of the few. Bitcoin is helping to liberate us and it’s absolutely working. A bold claim without evidence. In fact, the opposite may be true [1]. This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2]. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitcoin-whales-1-000-people-who-own-40-percent-of-the-market https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco... [2]: https://thebitcoinnews.com/study-argues-chinese-mining-centralization-poses-threat-to-bitcoin-network/ https://thebitcoinnews.com/study-argues-chinese-mining-centr...
  - rasengan 7y ago
    > A bold claim without evidence. In fact, the opposite may be true [1]. > [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitcoin-whales-1-000-people-who-own-40-percent-of-the-market https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/the-bitco... The same can be said about any money system in a capitalist economy (e.g., 1% owns 40% of the wealth in the US [1.1]). > This is but one counterpoint; another notable problem is the centralization of bitcoin mining in China [2]. I'm not sure this is 'looming' today as the article boldly claims, but centralization is definitely a risk. It's important for everyone to participate in the system as they can for a more equal distribution of ownership - akin to how one should exercise their vote in US elections. [1.1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- _jal 7y ago
  I disagree with the claims about effectiveness, but this is otherwise correct. Bitcoin emerged from the Cypherpunks crowd; while nobody has positively IDed the 'real' author of the paper, the ideological motivations are rooted in anarcho-capitalist thought. The operative theory is really not that different than Grover Norquist's; attack the tax base and the state withers. Grover is just less ambitious. The flaw in the bitcoin thesis is that the internet is powerful tool of centralized control and reinforces authoritarians, not the opposite.

notahacker 7y ago

> What are the issues that can’t be handled in the Handshake blockchain ecosystem? From the handshake FAQ: 'There are no social or technical guarantees with the renewability or ownership, this is an experimental system, please read the code to see details of how it currently works'. That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached...

rasengan 7y ago
> That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached... The blockchain auctions domains off to the highest bidder thru a blind Vickrey auction [1] wherein the winner pays the amount of the second highest bid. After the auction completes, the coins are burned (provably destroyed). Both the legacy ICANN system and new TLDs on Handshake [2] are working together in harmony. To be clear, everything on the internet including the internet itself started as an experiment. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickrey_auction [2] https://dns.live https://dns.live - Domain Adoption
tasuki 7y ago
> That's below the bit where they auction them off to the highest bidder. The hns paid for winning an auction are destroyed. > There are plenty of issues with ICANN, but it isn't a toy with a short term profit-maximization scheme attached. Handshake is anything but a short term profit-maximization scheme! The Handshake developers took $10 million of VC money and donated it to free and open source foundations: https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/ https://handshake.org/grant-sponsors/