6 ms·

> Some protocols require the introduction of centralization risk that is unavoidable by nature. For example, when there is a need a single, globally coordinated

> Some protocols require the introduction of centralization risk that is unavoidable by nature. For example, when there is a need a single, globally coordinated 'source of truth', that facility is by nature centralized. No, there is nothing unavoidable in making a centralized DNS system.

ggm 5y ago
You convert a single point of truth to a set of the point of truth and a voting system. The current cryptographically signed model uses a single signing authority. I suppose you could argue for multiple independent signing but it begs the question how you arrived at what was to be signed. That's a process to a unitary decision.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Right. Even putting aside blockchain-based systems, you can have systems without a dictator because they're based on voting. Suppose the root is a set of public keys, each with a top level domain. Adding one requires a supermajority of the others to agree. Removing one is impossible; it can sign its own successor and that's it. You now have a federated system with no single chokepoint.
- mindslight 5y ago
  I'd say blockchain naming and the system you describe are still both centralized. The authorities are distributed, but they're still collectively responsible for deciding on a single coherent root. Compare with systems that don't revolve around making any coherent global view, like Petnames. In the context of Zooko's triangle - do the human readable name lookup once as part of a manual process, and then persist the relationship as decentralized/secure but not human-readable.
- notriddle 5y ago
  > because they're based on voting All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The best methods to protect against Sybil attacks are centralized. The not-best methods use proof of work, which has extreme downsides and only makes Sybil attacks expensive, not impossible.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The voting system is the protection against Sybil attacks. A successful Sybil attack would allow you to add your own TLDs, but if you can't already do that then you can't do a Sybil attack. The real issue with that kind of system is deciding on the initial group of voters.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      How do the existing group of voters prove to themselves that the to-be-added voter is actually a unique person, and not a sockpuppet? If it’s something like a government ID, then they’ve outsourced the Sybil protection, and not actually gotten rid of it.
    - immibis 5y ago
      What stops me adding 10000000000 fake users and having them all vote for my new TLD?
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Sybil attacks aren't possible in what was just described though since it requires a vote to create a new voter.
acdha 5y ago
I think that's a question of whether you're thinking of “unavoidable” in the technical or social context. You could design a system where anyone can run their own root but would you want to operate a business in a world where your advertisements need to list which of the DNS roots you use and spend time paying to register with everything which becomes popular enough that spammers would consider registering your names? That seems even worse than the proliferation of top-level domains since there at least the name which people see is actually different than the one you advertise.
perryizgr8 5y ago
In fact, isn't torrent magnet links exactly this kind of a system? You can locate files on thousands of peer systems, without using a centralized tracker.
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  DHT definitely seems to fit. You can even search the DHT itself without using torrents or magnet links at all.
- notriddle 5y ago
  But not human readable, so not a replacement for DNS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
  - doublepg23 5y ago
    Can you comment on the proposed solutions in that article?
preseinger 5y ago
What? Practical addressability requires centralization by definition. How could it work otherwise?
- wmf 5y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle for an exploration of the tradeoffs.
  - preseinger 5y ago
    From the PetNames site, > Each name set consists of three elements: a key that is global and securely unique (but not necessarily memorable); a nickname that is global and memorable (but not at all unique), and a petname that is securely unique and memorable (but private, not global) An essential component of a practical addressing system is names which are global, memorable, _and_ unique. Colloquially, I need to be able to say "Google dot com" over the phone to someone, and their experience using that name needs to be identical to mine. A system that doesn't provide this property doesn't solve the problem.
- sweetbitter 5y ago
  If we go for human-readable and decentralized with reasonable security, we can look towards 'petname' systems, like the 'Address Book' software popular on the I2P network. Petnames are the subjective binding of public keys to shortened names, where a user resolves domain names to keys according to a combination of their own personal list (which can be easily expanded with specially-formatted 'address helper links') and the lists of third parties which they have chosen to trust (or which they have been bootstrapped into, thus trusting the bootstrapper by proxy). No need for environmentally unfriendly proof of work schemes or what-have-you. This falls on the 'less secure' point of Zooko's Triangle in the sense that, although it is very practical, decentralized, and usually avoids conflict, it does have trust-based security flaws if those providing their lists ('resolvers' if you will) manage to swap out keys for a petname without anyone noticing.
  - 5y ago

ggm 5y ago

You convert a single point of truth to a set of the point of truth and a voting system. The current cryptographically signed model uses a single signing authority. I suppose you could argue for multiple independent signing but it begs the question how you arrived at what was to be signed. That's a process to a unitary decision.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

Right. Even putting aside blockchain-based systems, you can have systems without a dictator because they're based on voting. Suppose the root is a set of public keys, each with a top level domain. Adding one requires a supermajority of the others to agree. Removing one is impossible; it can sign its own successor and that's it. You now have a federated system with no single chokepoint.

mindslight 5y ago
I'd say blockchain naming and the system you describe are still both centralized. The authorities are distributed, but they're still collectively responsible for deciding on a single coherent root. Compare with systems that don't revolve around making any coherent global view, like Petnames. In the context of Zooko's triangle - do the human readable name lookup once as part of a manual process, and then persist the relationship as decentralized/secure but not human-readable.
notriddle 5y ago
> because they're based on voting All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The best methods to protect against Sybil attacks are centralized. The not-best methods use proof of work, which has extreme downsides and only makes Sybil attacks expensive, not impossible.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > All voting systems require protection against Sybil attacks. The voting system is the protection against Sybil attacks. A successful Sybil attack would allow you to add your own TLDs, but if you can't already do that then you can't do a Sybil attack. The real issue with that kind of system is deciding on the initial group of voters.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    How do the existing group of voters prove to themselves that the to-be-added voter is actually a unique person, and not a sockpuppet? If it’s something like a government ID, then they’ve outsourced the Sybil protection, and not actually gotten rid of it.
  - immibis 5y ago
    What stops me adding 10000000000 fake users and having them all vote for my new TLD?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Sybil attacks aren't possible in what was just described though since it requires a vote to create a new voter.

acdha 5y ago

I think that's a question of whether you're thinking of “unavoidable” in the technical or social context. You could design a system where anyone can run their own root but would you want to operate a business in a world where your advertisements need to list which of the DNS roots you use and spend time paying to register with everything which becomes popular enough that spammers would consider registering your names? That seems even worse than the proliferation of top-level domains since there at least the name which people see is actually different than the one you advertise.

perryizgr8 5y ago

In fact, isn't torrent magnet links exactly this kind of a system? You can locate files on thousands of peer systems, without using a centralized tracker.

aspenmayer 5y ago
DHT definitely seems to fit. You can even search the DHT itself without using torrents or magnet links at all.
notriddle 5y ago
But not human readable, so not a replacement for DNS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
- doublepg23 5y ago
  Can you comment on the proposed solutions in that article?

preseinger 5y ago

What? Practical addressability requires centralization by definition. How could it work otherwise?

wmf 5y ago
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle for an exploration of the tradeoffs.
- preseinger 5y ago
  From the PetNames site, > Each name set consists of three elements: a key that is global and securely unique (but not necessarily memorable); a nickname that is global and memorable (but not at all unique), and a petname that is securely unique and memorable (but private, not global) An essential component of a practical addressing system is names which are global, memorable, _and_ unique. Colloquially, I need to be able to say "Google dot com" over the phone to someone, and their experience using that name needs to be identical to mine. A system that doesn't provide this property doesn't solve the problem.
sweetbitter 5y ago
If we go for human-readable and decentralized with reasonable security, we can look towards 'petname' systems, like the 'Address Book' software popular on the I2P network. Petnames are the subjective binding of public keys to shortened names, where a user resolves domain names to keys according to a combination of their own personal list (which can be easily expanded with specially-formatted 'address helper links') and the lists of third parties which they have chosen to trust (or which they have been bootstrapped into, thus trusting the bootstrapper by proxy). No need for environmentally unfriendly proof of work schemes or what-have-you. This falls on the 'less secure' point of Zooko's Triangle in the sense that, although it is very practical, decentralized, and usually avoids conflict, it does have trust-based security flaws if those providing their lists ('resolvers' if you will) manage to swap out keys for a petname without anyone noticing.
- 5y ago