3 ms·
Google hijacking DNS to sabotage projects like Namecoin?
- pjscott 13y agoSpoiler: the answer is no. To see the actual rationale, check out the blog post this guy is loudly reacting to: https://plus.google.com/+WilliamChanPanda/posts/FKot8mghkok https://plus.google.com/+WilliamChanPanda/posts/FKot8mghkok
- itistoday2 13y agoI did, and sections from that blog post were quoted in the link, and the specific rationale was dissected and questioned.
- declan 13y agoWhen you fear you're a nail, everything looks like a big scary hammer?
- itistoday2 13y agoYes, even hammers, the small, non-intimidating kind. ;) (Please keep the discussion to the merits of the points raised.)
- declan 13y agoI'm happy to do so, of course. In cases where the points actually have merit. :)
- itistoday2 13y ago...Whether or not the points have any merit, you're welcome to point that out and explain why.
- samworm 13y agoAre Google "hijacking DNS to sabotage projects like Namecoin?" - No. I doubt the people working on this give any thought to Namecoin, the user-base overlap is approximately 0%. They're doing this because they think it will improve performance.
- itistoday2 13y agoYour reply seems almost identical to pjscott's, to which I already responded (so my response to you is the same): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949269
- dingaling 13y agoWhilst I can understand Google's desire to parallelise and accelerate DNS resolution, building their own browser-level resolver is a hairy way to do so. Several projects have attempted to address this problem before ( C-ARES, and Polipo's internal resolver ) but never managed to achieve critical momentum. Might it not have been worth focusing effort there? Plus, naturally, there's the temptation to use Google's own public DNS servers instead of adhering to the OS-specified resolution order.
- itistoday2 13y ago"Hijacking" was poor word choice. I renamed the thread to "Google implementing its own DNS, implications for Namecoin?" Questions remain though, as to why Google is doing this. The rationale they've provided just doesn't make much sense in light of alternatives that they know about.
- itistoday2 13y agoI edited the post with the following comment (in bold at the bottom), as I did not notice the timestamp on the post, nor did anyone else bring it to my attention: EDIT (December 22, 2013 1:24PM EST): Actually, I made a mistake in failing to notice the timestamp of the post. It crossed my news feed yesterday, and I mistakenly assumed that it was news. In March of 2012 Google could not have known about DNSNMC specifically, but they could have known about Namecoin and [other DNS projects](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6950592 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6950592). Therefore, I take back my accusations against Google, apologize for them, and withhold judgement until I learn what their current-day plans are on this. If anyone knows off the top of their heads whether they are still planning on going in this direction, please comment below!