5 ms·

Instead of speculating, you could try to find the real answer... https://handshake.org/faq/ https://handshake.org/faq/ tl;dr: Censorship resistance is a featur

Instead of speculating, you could try to find the real answer... https://handshake.org/faq/ https://handshake.org/faq/ tl;dr: Censorship resistance is a feature, not a bug. Names are registered for a year at a time. Existing TLDs and the top 100,000 Alexa websites are reserved for existing DNS registrants.

brazzy 6y ago
It very much is a bug to design your system incapable of complying with existing laws. Calling it "censorship resistance" doesn't make that noble, just dishonest. It's also funny how the FAQ explicitly claims better protection of registrants' personal information as a feature, yet according to you a complete inability to protect anyone's personal information that some puts out there is also a feature...
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  If something is leaked once it is leaked forever. Anyway, would you say the same about projects like tor or freenet? They have censorship resistance too.
  - DagAgren 6y ago
    And they are mainly used for breaking the law.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Debatable, but even if this is true, and?
      - DagAgren 6y ago
        That maybe "censorship resistance" isn't the universal good some people make it out as. Maybe the people who benefit the most from it, and who make up the majority of those who actually benefit, are criminals. Maybe it's not a great idea to make tools that make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        > That maybe "censorship resistance" isn't the universal good some people make it out as How is it not? Not having it means that certain organisations and governments will be able to remove your ability to see certain things. > Maybe the people who benefit the most from it, and who make up the majority of those who actually benefit, are criminals Again, debatable. See all kinds of videos that are removed from youtube because either youtube thinks that they violate their tos or because someone makes a copyright claim on them for example. But even if the majority of these who did benefit from it were criminals, I will ask again, and? > Maybe it's not a great idea to make tools that make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. How so? I would assume that most of these who make such tools have some form of ideology similar to anarchism and who do not think that every action that the government designates as a crime is morally evil. In addition a lot of these people believe that certain elites and government officials are the ones committing the biggest crimes and use such tools to enforce transparency and benefit from censorship resistance and anonimity.
        DagAgren 6y ago
        > How is it not? Because it helps criminals commit crimes. Not crimes as in "oh the government doesn't like you doing this", crimes as in theft, fraud, blackmail and child rape.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        > crimes as in theft You can't steal physical objects via TCP due to censorship resistance. > fraud If anything censorship resistance helps prevent fraud - consider someone deleting comments that talk about how their service is a fraud. > blackmail I do not see how censorship resistance has anything to do with blackmail. > and child rape I do not see how censorship resistance can help a criminal rape children via TCP. But even if all of these were true, you are forgetting about the positive parts of censorship resistance.
        DagAgren 6y ago
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  Actually, I find that calling it censorship resistance is incredibly honest. You're absolutely right that there's a complete inability to protect anyone's personal information that someone puts out there at the blockchain level - but that's clearly a different level of "protecting registrants' personal information" than keeping such information for all website names in centralized databases that governments can access with a piece of rubber stamped paper. The two aren't conflatable the way OP mentions it. As an example - elonmusksssnis012345167 and other such names containing personal information could be blocked by the browsers or other legally liable, centralized points of access that people use to access Handshake names. My example isn't mutually exclusive with having a decentralized, distributed base layer (root zone) for names. If such (legally needed) censorship abilities were built in at the root zone, we'd see it abused as it is in the current system. That's the censorship resistance feature. tldr; Legal censorship can and should happen at another layer.
tirpen 6y ago
Oh, so they purposefully designed it to not be legal? Well in that case I guess it's ok!

brazzy 6y ago

It very much is a bug to design your system incapable of complying with existing laws. Calling it "censorship resistance" doesn't make that noble, just dishonest. It's also funny how the FAQ explicitly claims better protection of registrants' personal information as a feature, yet according to you a complete inability to protect anyone's personal information that some puts out there is also a feature...

dependenttypes 6y ago
If something is leaked once it is leaked forever. Anyway, would you say the same about projects like tor or freenet? They have censorship resistance too.
- DagAgren 6y ago
  And they are mainly used for breaking the law.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    Debatable, but even if this is true, and?
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      That maybe "censorship resistance" isn't the universal good some people make it out as. Maybe the people who benefit the most from it, and who make up the majority of those who actually benefit, are criminals. Maybe it's not a great idea to make tools that make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        > That maybe "censorship resistance" isn't the universal good some people make it out as How is it not? Not having it means that certain organisations and governments will be able to remove your ability to see certain things. > Maybe the people who benefit the most from it, and who make up the majority of those who actually benefit, are criminals Again, debatable. See all kinds of videos that are removed from youtube because either youtube thinks that they violate their tos or because someone makes a copyright claim on them for example. But even if the majority of these who did benefit from it were criminals, I will ask again, and? > Maybe it's not a great idea to make tools that make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. How so? I would assume that most of these who make such tools have some form of ideology similar to anarchism and who do not think that every action that the government designates as a crime is morally evil. In addition a lot of these people believe that certain elites and government officials are the ones committing the biggest crimes and use such tools to enforce transparency and benefit from censorship resistance and anonimity.
        DagAgren 6y ago
        > How is it not? Because it helps criminals commit crimes. Not crimes as in "oh the government doesn't like you doing this", crimes as in theft, fraud, blackmail and child rape.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        > crimes as in theft You can't steal physical objects via TCP due to censorship resistance. > fraud If anything censorship resistance helps prevent fraud - consider someone deleting comments that talk about how their service is a fraud. > blackmail I do not see how censorship resistance has anything to do with blackmail. > and child rape I do not see how censorship resistance can help a criminal rape children via TCP. But even if all of these were true, you are forgetting about the positive parts of censorship resistance.
        DagAgren 6y ago
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
Actually, I find that calling it censorship resistance is incredibly honest. You're absolutely right that there's a complete inability to protect anyone's personal information that someone puts out there at the blockchain level - but that's clearly a different level of "protecting registrants' personal information" than keeping such information for all website names in centralized databases that governments can access with a piece of rubber stamped paper. The two aren't conflatable the way OP mentions it. As an example - elonmusksssnis012345167 and other such names containing personal information could be blocked by the browsers or other legally liable, centralized points of access that people use to access Handshake names. My example isn't mutually exclusive with having a decentralized, distributed base layer (root zone) for names. If such (legally needed) censorship abilities were built in at the root zone, we'd see it abused as it is in the current system. That's the censorship resistance feature. tldr; Legal censorship can and should happen at another layer.

tirpen 6y ago

Oh, so they purposefully designed it to not be legal? Well in that case I guess it's ok!