5 ms·

> This appears to be just another commercialisation of domain names, trying to create another "Gold Rush" for the most sought after names. Winner-take-all. A fe

> This appears to be just another commercialisation of domain names, trying to create another "Gold Rush" for the most sought after names. Winner-take-all. A few profit at the expense of the many. This is a major problem that the project has made a sincere attempt to address. Through scarcity certain sybil protections are afforded, which has been inherently architected into the consensus protocol [1]. Additionally, an airdrop to many internet pioneers and open source developers was built in as well, giving everyone similar resources to participate in the auction system which, in turn, affords everyone more equality in participation. Finally, the top 100k names as per alexa were pre-reserved for the holders in the alexa list, and these sites are incentivized to properly setup DNSSEC, as that's the only way they can claim their name on handshake. This is a win for internet security and internet users. It's absolutely a big win for freedom of speech. [1] https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt

tptacek 6y ago
I feel obliged to point out again that this project appears to be a cryptocurrency scheme in which the owners are, in essence, selling the DNS naming hierarchy, which is genius since they do not in fact own it. Also, once again, I'd like to put out an appeal for anyone who wants to go in with me on a venture to do the same thing with ARP.
- dadrian 6y ago
  For $1000, I’ll let you ARP the EE prefix on my network
- rasengan 6y ago
  With all due respect, this comment reflects a poor understanding of decentralized projects and, particularly, public blockchains. > the owners are ... selling the DNS naming hierarchy The blockchain is providing names in a global namespace owned by the commons. I cannot understand why you have been harassing and stalking this project with troll-like behavior and rude, snarky comments. Let's try to be constructive and provide value to society and the future. The next generation reads these threads, and they look up to you. There's no reason for you to change that. And with that respect, not to sound all Uncle Ben on you, does come responsibility. Either way, love you tptacek and appreciate your contributions to HN. I can honestly say myself, that I've learned a lot by simply being audience to your conversation. Cheers.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. Why would anybody sign up for this? I genuinely have a hard time understanding why anybody would take this seriously. It's a plan to replace the DNS roots with... some company? That just decided they should be the ones to own it?
    - rasengan 6y ago
      > sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone other than FOSS developers. Please review the paper [1] for specific allocations. > "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. To be clear, this set consists of any developer on github who had 15 or more followers in 2019, the PGP web of trust strong set, and anyone on HN who had a keybase account in their profile. > Why would anybody sign up for this? I genuinely have a hard time understanding why anybody would take this seriously. I don't think there is anything to sign up for? Secondly, you absolutely don't need to use the new internet if you don't want to - just like nobody forces you to use anything else in this world. You have a choice. That said, we'll miss you. :( > It's a plan to replace the DNS roots with... some company? That just decided they should be the ones to own it? So actually, the DNS root is owned by some company [2] that is under the jurisdiction of California law. It used to be, and still basically is, owned by the US Department of Commerce. Internet users are replacing it with a public blockchain owned by the commons. Historically, revolutions happen all the time. Now it's the time for democratization of naming. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't own our own names? I think that the name might even be more valuable than money. What is anything without a name? [1] https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt [2] https://www.icann.org/ https://www.icann.org/
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
Surely I will be swiftly corrected by DNSSEC experts and I will dare to use less-than-correct terminology but doesn't DNSSEC make DNS more not less centralised. With DNSSEC, as I have seen it used in practice, a "root" must in effect "approve" of each domainname. In other words, cooperation from a root is required in order "certify" a domainname as "authentic". So if hypothetical internet user wants to serve her own RRs from her own nameserver for her own self-hosted own web resources on the internet, then she has to make sure a "root" approves of her source registry and registrar. Without the root's (indirect) blessing, her domainname is not "authentic" and should not be held in any shared cache. Here is a different idea. The intent is not "world-takeover" or "winning" any imaginary popularity contest but just a different kind of DNS service, because, well who needs a reason. Because we feel like it, how's that. The idea is: Start a registry that only allows djb-designed per-packet encrypted DNS to be used. That is, all persons running authoritative nameservers must follow some rules. They must publish public keys in subdomains of the nameserver's domain. For an example of how this looks, do an NS query to ianix.com. All authoritative nameservers in this imaginary registry would be required to offer per-packet encypted DNS. It would not be that difficult to start something like this at least on a small scale. People running authoritative nameservers simply need to run a CurveDNS forwarder in front of their preferred authoritative nameserver implementation. The CurveDNS forwarder is a small piece of free, open-source software. This type of encryption is different from DNSSEC, so this is not a "replacement" or even an "alternative" to that movement. It is something totally different. The purpose is not to address risk associated with shared DNS caches (e.g., poisoning and other tricks) as DNSSEC is intended to address, it is not to distinguish an "approved" domainname versus an "unapproved" one by creating some "chain of trust" to a "root". The purpose is just to encyrpt DNS packets. The focus is authoritative DNS, the folks that actually own the web resource, not recursive DNS, third party DNS cache providers, etc. There are couple of reference implementations of the DNSCurve-enabled cache and one of a dig-like client users would run on their home/own networks to send encypted queries and decrypt responses. This whole system for encrypting DNS has been around for over a decade and IMHO is easily as "battle-tested" as anything DNSSEC. Does that mean everyone should use it. No. But it means anyone could use it. For no other reason that because they feel like it. The main problem something like Handshake is purportedly aimed at solving, namely centralisation of who controls "the" DNS, is IMO caused by the commercialisation and making a "market" for names. There is no way anyone is going to solve the centralisation problem by offering a commercial alternative that replays the "Gold Rush" of the first DNS (not to mention all the corruption that followed, culminating in "new gTLDs" for $185,000+). If we want to level the DNS playing field, then IMO we would have to take the money out of it. That might mean "vanity" names are not as important. Who knows, public keys might play a more important role. I am thinking of those Facebook workers who "brute-forced/mined" some .onion name they thought was more recognisable. Silly. "Decentralised" would seem to imply more equality across the namespace, not "I snagged the best names before everyone else" (using x kilowatts in the process) or "That name sucks." Just an opinion. Good luck with the blockchain.

tptacek 6y ago

I feel obliged to point out again that this project appears to be a cryptocurrency scheme in which the owners are, in essence, selling the DNS naming hierarchy, which is genius since they do not in fact own it. Also, once again, I'd like to put out an appeal for anyone who wants to go in with me on a venture to do the same thing with ARP.

dadrian 6y ago
For $1000, I’ll let you ARP the EE prefix on my network
rasengan 6y ago
With all due respect, this comment reflects a poor understanding of decentralized projects and, particularly, public blockchains. > the owners are ... selling the DNS naming hierarchy The blockchain is providing names in a global namespace owned by the commons. I cannot understand why you have been harassing and stalking this project with troll-like behavior and rude, snarky comments. Let's try to be constructive and provide value to society and the future. The next generation reads these threads, and they look up to you. There's no reason for you to change that. And with that respect, not to sound all Uncle Ben on you, does come responsibility. Either way, love you tptacek and appreciate your contributions to HN. I can honestly say myself, that I've learned a lot by simply being audience to your conversation. Cheers.
- tptacek 6y ago
  I can sort of understand the idea of people starting a new parallel naming system as a piece of Internet infrastructure, sort of the same way DNS happened. Where you lose me, like, all the way across the horizon is where the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves, and then "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. Why would anybody sign up for this? I genuinely have a hard time understanding why anybody would take this seriously. It's a plan to replace the DNS roots with... some company? That just decided they should be the ones to own it?
  - rasengan 6y ago
    > sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone other than FOSS developers. Please review the paper [1] for specific allocations. > "airdropped" to a set of developers they collected in 2018. To be clear, this set consists of any developer on github who had 15 or more followers in 2019, the PGP web of trust strong set, and anyone on HN who had a keybase account in their profile. > Why would anybody sign up for this? I genuinely have a hard time understanding why anybody would take this seriously. I don't think there is anything to sign up for? Secondly, you absolutely don't need to use the new internet if you don't want to - just like nobody forces you to use anything else in this world. You have a choice. That said, we'll miss you. :( > It's a plan to replace the DNS roots with... some company? That just decided they should be the ones to own it? So actually, the DNS root is owned by some company [2] that is under the jurisdiction of California law. It used to be, and still basically is, owned by the US Department of Commerce. Internet users are replacing it with a public blockchain owned by the commons. Historically, revolutions happen all the time. Now it's the time for democratization of naming. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't own our own names? I think that the name might even be more valuable than money. What is anything without a name? [1] https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt [2] https://www.icann.org/ https://www.icann.org/

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

Surely I will be swiftly corrected by DNSSEC experts and I will dare to use less-than-correct terminology but doesn't DNSSEC make DNS more not less centralised. With DNSSEC, as I have seen it used in practice, a "root" must in effect "approve" of each domainname. In other words, cooperation from a root is required in order "certify" a domainname as "authentic". So if hypothetical internet user wants to serve her own RRs from her own nameserver for her own self-hosted own web resources on the internet, then she has to make sure a "root" approves of her source registry and registrar. Without the root's (indirect) blessing, her domainname is not "authentic" and should not be held in any shared cache. Here is a different idea. The intent is not "world-takeover" or "winning" any imaginary popularity contest but just a different kind of DNS service, because, well who needs a reason. Because we feel like it, how's that. The idea is: Start a registry that only allows djb-designed per-packet encrypted DNS to be used. That is, all persons running authoritative nameservers must follow some rules. They must publish public keys in subdomains of the nameserver's domain. For an example of how this looks, do an NS query to ianix.com. All authoritative nameservers in this imaginary registry would be required to offer per-packet encypted DNS. It would not be that difficult to start something like this at least on a small scale. People running authoritative nameservers simply need to run a CurveDNS forwarder in front of their preferred authoritative nameserver implementation. The CurveDNS forwarder is a small piece of free, open-source software. This type of encryption is different from DNSSEC, so this is not a "replacement" or even an "alternative" to that movement. It is something totally different. The purpose is not to address risk associated with shared DNS caches (e.g., poisoning and other tricks) as DNSSEC is intended to address, it is not to distinguish an "approved" domainname versus an "unapproved" one by creating some "chain of trust" to a "root". The purpose is just to encyrpt DNS packets. The focus is authoritative DNS, the folks that actually own the web resource, not recursive DNS, third party DNS cache providers, etc. There are couple of reference implementations of the DNSCurve-enabled cache and one of a dig-like client users would run on their home/own networks to send encypted queries and decrypt responses. This whole system for encrypting DNS has been around for over a decade and IMHO is easily as "battle-tested" as anything DNSSEC. Does that mean everyone should use it. No. But it means anyone could use it. For no other reason that because they feel like it. The main problem something like Handshake is purportedly aimed at solving, namely centralisation of who controls "the" DNS, is IMO caused by the commercialisation and making a "market" for names. There is no way anyone is going to solve the centralisation problem by offering a commercial alternative that replays the "Gold Rush" of the first DNS (not to mention all the corruption that followed, culminating in "new gTLDs" for $185,000+). If we want to level the DNS playing field, then IMO we would have to take the money out of it. That might mean "vanity" names are not as important. Who knows, public keys might play a more important role. I am thinking of those Facebook workers who "brute-forced/mined" some .onion name they thought was more recognisable. Silly. "Decentralised" would seem to imply more equality across the namespace, not "I snagged the best names before everyone else" (using x kilowatts in the process) or "That name sucks." Just an opinion. Good luck with the blockchain.