5 ms·

Just clicked the link. I just see the usual lazy kit web site, and no prominently linked white paper. No, I didn't scroll or click. I just looked at where I lan

by alan_cx 13y ago

Just clicked the link. I just see the usual lazy kit web site, and no prominently linked white paper. No, I didn't scroll or click. I just looked at where I landed. Nothing. Just standard bland marketing stuff, pushing something that comes across as snake oil. It makes fantastic claims that given what we know about the NSA and its tentacles, are very hard to take seriously. If their claim were true, I'd expect to know that straight away from the landing page, and be blown over by the storm such protection would mean. If any one really made it 100% impossible for the likes of GCHQ and the NSA to spy, all hell would break loose.

itistoday2 13y ago
If their claim were true, I'd expect to know that straight away from the landing page Well, how do you propose the details be presented "straight away"? They require a good bit of explanation, and a bunch of text "straight away" would make your eyes glaze over. Scroll down a bit and the information is introduced in manageable chunks. Then there's the paper that salient linked to. You just have to scroll a little bit, and if that's too much for you... well, again, feel free to offer suggestions. :) http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf Edit: re: "lazy kit web site", the site was made from scratch by Will Stanley (and I wrote some of the JS for it). I think he did a great job.
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  I read the paper, and stopped abruptly when you said you haven't specified anything yet because you want to work with the Namecoin community. This is what I think you're saying: 1) Namecoin successfully squares Zooko's Triangle. 2) Namecoin is hard to use, so something new, let's call it DNSNMC, will be needed to make it easy. 3) A DNSNMC server will decode data from the namecoin chain, and you can trust that it is telling the truth because you already trust that DNSNMC server. A trusted proxy/offload for namecoin lookups isn't a crazy idea, but it doesn't add much to the system. I'd suggest rewriting this paper and removing all the political justification for why one might want such a system. Everyone gets that, but not everyone wants a system like this for the same reasons anyway. And since it's of interest to you anyway, I'd very much like to read some analysis from you on Dan Kaminsky's criticisms of Aaron's proposal. Does Namecoin square Zooko's Triangle?
  - itistoday2 13y ago
    Excellent comment. For reference, dvanduzer is most likely referring to this blog post and the exchange that took place in the comments: http://dankaminsky.com/2011/01/13/spelunk-tri/ http://dankaminsky.com/2011/01/13/spelunk-tri/ First, let me answer your question, "Does Namecoin square Zooko's Triangle?" Yes, I believe it does. Whether or not Namecoin works depends on whether or not Bitcoin works. They are the same exact technology (they're just used for different purposes). From what I could tell of Dan Kaminsky's comments, I believe his arguments boil down to the well known 51% attack. Two things of note here: 1. See Dan's 2013 post on businessinsider where he appears to be retracting his words: "I Tried Hacking Bitcoin And I Failed" http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws-bitcoin-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws... 2. The 51% attack is still a real threat. The Bitcoin community is on it: Proof of blockchain fair sharing is a draft Bitcoin protocol change proposal by Iain Stewart, with the goal of allowing the network to continue to settle on a sensible consensus blockchain even when subject to a considerably- greater-than-50% attack. The protocol is under construction. The following description is a "teaser", establishing its basic flavour and sketching how it exploits an asymmetry in the goals of the honest (<50%) and malicious (>50%) miners to avoid the usual reductio ad absurdum argument against any protocol surviving a >50% attack. From: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing Re: "I'd suggest rewriting this paper and removing all the political justification for why one might want such a system. Everyone gets that, but not everyone wants a system like this for the same reasons anyway." Given the well popularized "debate" on this topic, I think it's quite clear that everyone does not get that. it doesn't add much to the system. It adds: - The ability for JS apps to talk to and retrieve info from the blockchain without a browser extension (this wasn't possible before. It's a significant thing IMO). - A new meta-domain (.nmc) and corresponding RESTful API for manipulating the blockchain - DNSNMC may also support DNSCrypt (so that adds secure queries too). - A gateway for browsers and other software to verify SSL certs without having to run a local namecoind client. (Which means you don't need to pay for them anymore!) Probably other useful stuff I'm forgetting at the moment. Perhaps others might chime in. Oh, see also related topic: "Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing squatters" https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1439 https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1439

by alan_cx 13y ago

itistoday2 13y ago

If their claim were true, I'd expect to know that straight away from the landing page Well, how do you propose the details be presented "straight away"? They require a good bit of explanation, and a bunch of text "straight away" would make your eyes glaze over. Scroll down a bit and the information is introduced in manageable chunks. Then there's the paper that salient linked to. You just have to scroll a little bit, and if that's too much for you... well, again, feel free to offer suggestions. :) http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf Edit: re: "lazy kit web site", the site was made from scratch by Will Stanley (and I wrote some of the JS for it). I think he did a great job.

dvanduzer 13y ago
I read the paper, and stopped abruptly when you said you haven't specified anything yet because you want to work with the Namecoin community. This is what I think you're saying: 1) Namecoin successfully squares Zooko's Triangle. 2) Namecoin is hard to use, so something new, let's call it DNSNMC, will be needed to make it easy. 3) A DNSNMC server will decode data from the namecoin chain, and you can trust that it is telling the truth because you already trust that DNSNMC server. A trusted proxy/offload for namecoin lookups isn't a crazy idea, but it doesn't add much to the system. I'd suggest rewriting this paper and removing all the political justification for why one might want such a system. Everyone gets that, but not everyone wants a system like this for the same reasons anyway. And since it's of interest to you anyway, I'd very much like to read some analysis from you on Dan Kaminsky's criticisms of Aaron's proposal. Does Namecoin square Zooko's Triangle?
- itistoday2 13y ago
  Excellent comment. For reference, dvanduzer is most likely referring to this blog post and the exchange that took place in the comments: http://dankaminsky.com/2011/01/13/spelunk-tri/ http://dankaminsky.com/2011/01/13/spelunk-tri/ First, let me answer your question, "Does Namecoin square Zooko's Triangle?" Yes, I believe it does. Whether or not Namecoin works depends on whether or not Bitcoin works. They are the same exact technology (they're just used for different purposes). From what I could tell of Dan Kaminsky's comments, I believe his arguments boil down to the well known 51% attack. Two things of note here: 1. See Dan's 2013 post on businessinsider where he appears to be retracting his words: "I Tried Hacking Bitcoin And I Failed" http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws-bitcoin-2013-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws... 2. The 51% attack is still a real threat. The Bitcoin community is on it: Proof of blockchain fair sharing is a draft Bitcoin protocol change proposal by Iain Stewart, with the goal of allowing the network to continue to settle on a sensible consensus blockchain even when subject to a considerably- greater-than-50% attack. The protocol is under construction. The following description is a "teaser", establishing its basic flavour and sketching how it exploits an asymmetry in the goals of the honest (<50%) and malicious (>50%) miners to avoid the usual reductio ad absurdum argument against any protocol surviving a >50% attack. From: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_blockchain_fair_sharing Re: "I'd suggest rewriting this paper and removing all the political justification for why one might want such a system. Everyone gets that, but not everyone wants a system like this for the same reasons anyway." Given the well popularized "debate" on this topic, I think it's quite clear that everyone does not get that. it doesn't add much to the system. It adds: - The ability for JS apps to talk to and retrieve info from the blockchain without a browser extension (this wasn't possible before. It's a significant thing IMO). - A new meta-domain (.nmc) and corresponding RESTful API for manipulating the blockchain - DNSNMC may also support DNSCrypt (so that adds secure queries too). - A gateway for browsers and other software to verify SSL certs without having to run a local namecoind client. (Which means you don't need to pay for them anymore!) Probably other useful stuff I'm forgetting at the moment. Perhaps others might chime in. Oh, see also related topic: "Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing squatters" https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1439 https://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1439