3 ms·
> It advocates using someone else's trusted server as a data source Wrong; it advocates using your own server, but proposes public servers for tests. Here's an
by rakoo 12y ago
> It advocates using someone else's trusted server as a data source
Wrong; it advocates using your own server, but proposes public servers for tests. Here's an excerpt of the README:
DNSChain is meant to be run by individuals!
Yes, you can use a public DNSChain server, but it's far
better to use your own because it gives you more
privacy, makes you more resistant to censorship, and
provides you with a stronger guarantee that the
responses you get haven't been tampered with by a
malicious server.
- ryan-c 12y agoI must have either misremembered or it has been changed since I last looked, then. It is still the case that using DNSChain will not get you validated SSL for .bit domains without additional software. It can serve DANE records, but the browser won't verify them and the existing browser extensions for adding DANE support require DNSSEC which DNSChain does not provide.
- itistoday2 12y ago> It is still the case that using DNSChain will not get you validated SSL for .bit domains without additional software. Yes, just like FreeSpeechMe it the SSL validation will initially work via a browser extension, but unlike FSM (heh) it does not carry the additional baggage of requiring you to run a Namecoin node on your [phone/laptop/etc.].