3 ms·

Anything built on domain names cannot be described as "built to last." Not HTTP, not SMTP, not Gopher, not DNS, not the Fediverse. This is because domain names

Anything built on domain names cannot be described as "built to last." Not HTTP, not SMTP, not Gopher, not DNS, not the Fediverse. This is because domain names are rented out, and have expiration times attached to them, so obviously they can only last as long as the organization behind both the domain and the registrar keeps it there. IRC and USENET were built to last. Names in either network weren't tied to anyone but the collective "network." Neither network gets used much today, since names aren't tied to anyone in particular. It turns out that globally writable data stores are great vehicles for spam and fraud. Content-addressed systems like BitTorrent and I2P can theoretically maintain content availability for as long as anybody wants to keep it available, not just whoever originally published it. BitTorrent is also pretty secure, but it's not truly fair since it's an immutable data store, and all the spam and fraud is just outsourced to HTTP instead of being eliminated entirely.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> theoretically maintain content availability for as long as anybody wants to keep it available, not just whoever originally published it I'd argue that this is probably as good as we can get. Even if something is built-to-last, a person can still throw something away (and indeed many people find good stuff in dumpsters!) If nobody is willing to pay the cost to actually host something, then it goes "into the trash" so to speak. I realize that physical goods last even in the trash, but that's not something a digital good can ever be unless it's serialized to some form of storage. VPRI (of Alan Kay fame) has published an interesting paper [1] trying to create a Cuneiform Tablet of code. [1]: The Cuneiform Tablets of 2015 - http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2015004_cuneiform.pdf http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2015004_cuneiform.pdf
gnubison 5y ago
Wait, isn’t IRC also built on domain names? (Albeit at a lower level)
- lmm 5y ago
  Individual servers have domain names but only as a convenience. The network can outlive any particular domain.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    But you're also depending entirely on the one organization hosting the network, c.f. Freenode.
    - lmm 5y ago
      I was actually thinking of Freenode - while someone may have been able to "hijack" the domain and even the name Freenode, I'd argue that the network itself has outlived both of those.
lucideer 5y ago
While I 100% agree on your critique of DNS, there's two small issues: 1. The protocols you list are not strictly married to DNS in any way. e.g. https://<ip-address> https://<ip-address> works fine. Granted it's not very practical to use right now but there's nothing in the HTTP spec. preventing things working without DNS. 2. DNS isn't technically married to ICANN either. There are alternative domain name assignment proposals and systems that use the same protocols without ICANN. Again, not super practical today but theoretically possible to use. So the fact that these systems are all so loosely coupled makes them pretty resilient and very much "built to last". Moving away from ICANN may be hampered by the inertia of a gargantuan network effect, but that's not any bigger than the inertia of moving off HTTP completely.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> theoretically maintain content availability for as long as anybody wants to keep it available, not just whoever originally published it I'd argue that this is probably as good as we can get. Even if something is built-to-last, a person can still throw something away (and indeed many people find good stuff in dumpsters!) If nobody is willing to pay the cost to actually host something, then it goes "into the trash" so to speak. I realize that physical goods last even in the trash, but that's not something a digital good can ever be unless it's serialized to some form of storage. VPRI (of Alan Kay fame) has published an interesting paper [1] trying to create a Cuneiform Tablet of code. [1]: The Cuneiform Tablets of 2015 - http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2015004_cuneiform.pdf http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2015004_cuneiform.pdf

gnubison 5y ago

Wait, isn’t IRC also built on domain names? (Albeit at a lower level)

lmm 5y ago
Individual servers have domain names but only as a convenience. The network can outlive any particular domain.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  But you're also depending entirely on the one organization hosting the network, c.f. Freenode.
  - lmm 5y ago
    I was actually thinking of Freenode - while someone may have been able to "hijack" the domain and even the name Freenode, I'd argue that the network itself has outlived both of those.

lucideer 5y ago

While I 100% agree on your critique of DNS, there's two small issues: 1. The protocols you list are not strictly married to DNS in any way. e.g. https://<ip-address> https://<ip-address> works fine. Granted it's not very practical to use right now but there's nothing in the HTTP spec. preventing things working without DNS. 2. DNS isn't technically married to ICANN either. There are alternative domain name assignment proposals and systems that use the same protocols without ICANN. Again, not super practical today but theoretically possible to use. So the fact that these systems are all so loosely coupled makes them pretty resilient and very much "built to last". Moving away from ICANN may be hampered by the inertia of a gargantuan network effect, but that's not any bigger than the inertia of moving off HTTP completely.