8 ms·

Those servers are only necessary for the ICANN tlds and those will continue to act as they do today, even in a Handshake future. With Handshake, you run your o

Those servers are only necessary for the ICANN tlds and those will continue to act as they do today, even in a Handshake future. With Handshake, you run your own authoritative server (or use a hosted one) for your own name and that authoritative server's information will be obtainable on chain. No middle-man, no rent seeking.

jedberg 5y ago
I understand how handshake works. What I'm saying is that getting my mom to point her DNS servers at an alternate server is a non-starter. You have to get the root servers on board to carry all TLDs or most people will never find them.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  But then the root servers can still be used to censor domains by removing them.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    They aren't all in the US. Right now they remove a .com by telling Verisign, a US company, to change the registration for the .com. Since Verisign is the only way to change a .com, it works. Many root servers operate outside of the US. If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses, then even if they blocked the US roots the others would still have it. Even today if all the US root servers go off-line every system would find the others and use them.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      > If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses But it's not -- the root servers are -- by premise here. Premise is we assume zero config results in ICANN root servers having authority. My point is that given this premise, blockchain is ineffective. You are introducing ICANN as informational MITM and censor node in between user and blockchain validation. True, you are excluding USA, if your only goal is exclude USA then this accomplishes that goal, but if your goal is censorship-proof then this is not it.
- sneak 5y ago
  Browser extensions and apps can start resolving alternate roots using non-DNS methods for those who opt-in.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    Sure, but again, that will never take off. "Install this plugin to access our website" is a non-starter for most people.
    - rasengan 5y ago
      It doesn't seem different from "install this app" to access our services though? And clearly, this model has proliferated with fluidity.
      - jedberg 5y ago
        Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company. Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.
        salawat 5y ago
        ...Only because we (software engineers, developers, etc...) have completely failed in managing to make our field more communicable to users, and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field. I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory management/models/toolchains. Browsers are a living nightmare of complexity, and I am continuously amazed at the number of programmers who have no clue about the gory details of networking.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        Products created for the purpose of lock-in can't invite user participation because the first thing user-participants would do is remediate lock-in.

jedberg 5y ago

I understand how handshake works. What I'm saying is that getting my mom to point her DNS servers at an alternate server is a non-starter. You have to get the root servers on board to carry all TLDs or most people will never find them.

DarylZero 5y ago
But then the root servers can still be used to censor domains by removing them.
- jedberg 5y ago
  They aren't all in the US. Right now they remove a .com by telling Verisign, a US company, to change the registration for the .com. Since Verisign is the only way to change a .com, it works. Many root servers operate outside of the US. If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses, then even if they blocked the US roots the others would still have it. Even today if all the US root servers go off-line every system would find the others and use them.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    > If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses But it's not -- the root servers are -- by premise here. Premise is we assume zero config results in ICANN root servers having authority. My point is that given this premise, blockchain is ineffective. You are introducing ICANN as informational MITM and censor node in between user and blockchain validation. True, you are excluding USA, if your only goal is exclude USA then this accomplishes that goal, but if your goal is censorship-proof then this is not it.
sneak 5y ago
Browser extensions and apps can start resolving alternate roots using non-DNS methods for those who opt-in.
- jedberg 5y ago
  Sure, but again, that will never take off. "Install this plugin to access our website" is a non-starter for most people.
  - rasengan 5y ago
    It doesn't seem different from "install this app" to access our services though? And clearly, this model has proliferated with fluidity.
    - jedberg 5y ago
      Installing apps is easy, built into the phone. And comes from a curated store run by a US company. Installing plugins is well beyond the capabilities of most people, especially since the plugins for the default browsers come from a curated store run by US companies.
      - salawat 5y ago
        ...Only because we (software engineers, developers, etc...) have completely failed in managing to make our field more communicable to users, and have gone down the path of complicating the hell out of things instead of nailing down the primitives and onboarding to the field. I'm not even talking any wishy washy inclusiveness mumbo jumbo either. I'm talking over complicating the boot chain, over complicating memory management/models/toolchains. Browsers are a living nightmare of complexity, and I am continuously amazed at the number of programmers who have no clue about the gory details of networking.
        DarylZero 5y ago
        Products created for the purpose of lock-in can't invite user participation because the first thing user-participants would do is remediate lock-in.