6 ms·

Open Name System: Extending DNS with the Blockchain

135 points by muneeb 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago
How is this different from DNSChain?
- itistoday2 12y ago
  Having looked at it a bit more, here are some differences that I noticed: - This is written in python. DNSChain is written in CoffeeScript and runs on NodeJS. - This focuses on a command line utility, whereas with DNSChain you don't need one (just do an HTTP request). - opendig is like dig, so it doesn't provide your devices with DNS service (DNSChain does). - DNSChain focuses on security, signing of responses (though that's not implemented yet), replacing X509 PKI, unique anti-censorship features thanks to partnership with Unblock.us.org project, public key distribution for JavaScript apps... See the full list on the GitHub page. - ONS seems to be working on competing blockchain specifications to Namecoin's existing ones. DNSChain doesn't touch that. - DNSChain intends to add write access to the blockchain. It's not clear whether ONS project does or not. - Namecoin and DNSChain predate ONS and are active projects with different functionality that ONS seems to be replicating parts of, so I'm not sure why the authors chose to not collaborate with either of those projects and tread off on their own.
martindale 12y ago
Is Naval behind this?
misterbishop 12y ago
This is the first attempt I've seen at using a blockchain for DNS. Looks like an amazing solution to an increasingly desperate problem (as DNS takedowns are the preferred method for internet censorship).
- DINKDINK 12y ago
  Are you familiar with NameCoin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
- eric_bullington 12y ago
  One of the first uses of blockchain technology for a non-financial application was an alternative domain name registration system called Namecoin, started back in 2010 and still active. Granted, that was an alternative domain name system, not an ICANN extension like this one. And it used a separate blockchain and coin (Namecoin), not the Bitcoin blockchain, which may be what you were referring to. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to mention Namecoin in any discussion about the history of blockchain technology and DNS. (incidentally, Namecoin was also the first altcoin)
  - ryan-c 12y ago
    This thing runs on Namecoin, though that is buried in the documentation.
    - eric_bullington 12y ago
      Ah, you're right. I thought they had moved to the Bitcoin blockchain. But that's a whole can of worms, so it's probably best they stay on Namecoin. Bar the big incident last year (which it did recover from), Namecoin has been pretty stable.
    - wcummings 12y ago
      Buried on the front page
      - ryan-c 12y ago
        Wasn't mentioned at all when my previous comment was posted.
- Rhapso 12y ago
  https://github.com/BrendanBenshoof/P2PDNS/raw/master/P3DNS.pdf https://github.com/BrendanBenshoof/P2PDNS/raw/master/P3DNS.p...
gtirloni 12y ago
Why should we base critical infrastructure on completely anonymous building blocks? There is no mention about who is working on this, their motivations, the domain is behind WhoisGuard, etc. Why is it so critical to become anonymous as a developer in this case? Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays? It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes.
- ryangittins 12y ago
  I like the idea they're going for here, but I agree. For something like this to work, it should be as transparent as possible and easy to audit. Could you elaborate on your point on Bitcoin? I'm not an expert, but I have some experience with it and it seems to be pretty thoroughly open, transparent, and auditable. It's certainly more clear than banking processes.
- VMG 12y ago
  > Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays? There's some evidence they're monitoring people who are interested in Tor and the Tails Linux distribution. There's very good reason to assume that working on crypto stuff gets you on a list.
- joebadmo 12y ago
  At the bottom: "currently maintained by the team at onename.io" https://onename.io/about https://onename.io/about There's also links to the github repos.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- x1798DE 12y ago
  >It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes. What additional information would get get from the name of the people behind this? How is Bitcoin in any way shady? It's an open protocol and most people use open-source clients to access it. You (and anyone else - including people with a lot of money riding on it) can verify that you trust the code, even if you don't have any idea who wrote it. Compare to a bank's process, where if you even try and reverse engineer the protocol you're risking jailtime.
eric_bullington 12y ago
This is a pretty direct challenge to keybase.io. I really, really like the keybase implementation, but the one thing I wished for keybase was that it was decentralized. This has that. However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go before they match keybase.
- harveygold 12y ago
  > However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go before they match keybase. Care to explain how? They're the team behind onename.io and clearly seem to have just as strong an implementation.
  - eric_bullington 12y ago
    I totally agree that onename.io has done a good job integrating that site with Namecoin. However, with this new project ONS, I don't yet see a way to certify all the social identities that Keybase supports, not to mention the attractive user interface and convenient command line client of Keybase. That said, it's a new project. I'm not saying onename.io won't accomplish this (I hope they do!). I'm just saying they have a lot to do to match what Keybase has.
andrewstuart2 12y ago
In addition to creating a website for this, you really should submit it to the IETF as an RFC. Get more engineers looking at it and improving it. If it ends up getting enough backing, we might even have a new standard.
- itistoday2 12y ago
  There are specifications that I'm sure will be submitted to IETF as RFCs (when they're ready). You can seem them on Namecoin's wiki (scroll to the bottom): https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome
Cyther606 12y ago
ONS is using Namecoin. Namecoin isn't free to use, is it? I'm curious to know what is the business model behind this and onename.io, since they must pay to add entries to the Namecoin blockchain.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

135 points by muneeb 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

How is this different from DNSChain?

itistoday2 12y ago
Having looked at it a bit more, here are some differences that I noticed: - This is written in python. DNSChain is written in CoffeeScript and runs on NodeJS. - This focuses on a command line utility, whereas with DNSChain you don't need one (just do an HTTP request). - opendig is like dig, so it doesn't provide your devices with DNS service (DNSChain does). - DNSChain focuses on security, signing of responses (though that's not implemented yet), replacing X509 PKI, unique anti-censorship features thanks to partnership with Unblock.us.org project, public key distribution for JavaScript apps... See the full list on the GitHub page. - ONS seems to be working on competing blockchain specifications to Namecoin's existing ones. DNSChain doesn't touch that. - DNSChain intends to add write access to the blockchain. It's not clear whether ONS project does or not. - Namecoin and DNSChain predate ONS and are active projects with different functionality that ONS seems to be replicating parts of, so I'm not sure why the authors chose to not collaborate with either of those projects and tread off on their own.

martindale 12y ago

Is Naval behind this?

misterbishop 12y ago

This is the first attempt I've seen at using a blockchain for DNS. Looks like an amazing solution to an increasingly desperate problem (as DNS takedowns are the preferred method for internet censorship).

DINKDINK 12y ago
Are you familiar with NameCoin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
eric_bullington 12y ago
One of the first uses of blockchain technology for a non-financial application was an alternative domain name registration system called Namecoin, started back in 2010 and still active. Granted, that was an alternative domain name system, not an ICANN extension like this one. And it used a separate blockchain and coin (Namecoin), not the Bitcoin blockchain, which may be what you were referring to. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to mention Namecoin in any discussion about the history of blockchain technology and DNS. (incidentally, Namecoin was also the first altcoin)
- ryan-c 12y ago
  This thing runs on Namecoin, though that is buried in the documentation.
  - eric_bullington 12y ago
    Ah, you're right. I thought they had moved to the Bitcoin blockchain. But that's a whole can of worms, so it's probably best they stay on Namecoin. Bar the big incident last year (which it did recover from), Namecoin has been pretty stable.
  - wcummings 12y ago
    Buried on the front page
    - ryan-c 12y ago
      Wasn't mentioned at all when my previous comment was posted.
Rhapso 12y ago
https://github.com/BrendanBenshoof/P2PDNS/raw/master/P3DNS.pdf https://github.com/BrendanBenshoof/P2PDNS/raw/master/P3DNS.p...

gtirloni 12y ago

Why should we base critical infrastructure on completely anonymous building blocks? There is no mention about who is working on this, their motivations, the domain is behind WhoisGuard, etc. Why is it so critical to become anonymous as a developer in this case? Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays? It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes.

ryangittins 12y ago
I like the idea they're going for here, but I agree. For something like this to work, it should be as transparent as possible and easy to audit. Could you elaborate on your point on Bitcoin? I'm not an expert, but I have some experience with it and it seems to be pretty thoroughly open, transparent, and auditable. It's certainly more clear than banking processes.
VMG 12y ago
> Perhaps I'm missing something but is the FBI/CIA going after anyone working on blockchain/crypto stuff nowadays? There's some evidence they're monitoring people who are interested in Tor and the Tails Linux distribution. There's very good reason to assume that working on crypto stuff gets you on a list.
joebadmo 12y ago
At the bottom: "currently maintained by the team at onename.io" https://onename.io/about https://onename.io/about There's also links to the github repos.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
x1798DE 12y ago
>It feels like asking for transparency, but only from others. Same reason I can't truly trust Bitcoin, it's as shady as my bank's processes. What additional information would get get from the name of the people behind this? How is Bitcoin in any way shady? It's an open protocol and most people use open-source clients to access it. You (and anyone else - including people with a lot of money riding on it) can verify that you trust the code, even if you don't have any idea who wrote it. Compare to a bank's process, where if you even try and reverse engineer the protocol you're risking jailtime.

eric_bullington 12y ago

This is a pretty direct challenge to keybase.io. I really, really like the keybase implementation, but the one thing I wished for keybase was that it was decentralized. This has that. However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go before they match keybase.

harveygold 12y ago
> However, in terms of the implementation itself, they still have a way to go before they match keybase. Care to explain how? They're the team behind onename.io and clearly seem to have just as strong an implementation.
- eric_bullington 12y ago
  I totally agree that onename.io has done a good job integrating that site with Namecoin. However, with this new project ONS, I don't yet see a way to certify all the social identities that Keybase supports, not to mention the attractive user interface and convenient command line client of Keybase. That said, it's a new project. I'm not saying onename.io won't accomplish this (I hope they do!). I'm just saying they have a lot to do to match what Keybase has.

andrewstuart2 12y ago

In addition to creating a website for this, you really should submit it to the IETF as an RFC. Get more engineers looking at it and improving it. If it ends up getting enough backing, we might even have a new standard.

itistoday2 12y ago
There are specifications that I'm sure will be submitted to IETF as RFCs (when they're ready). You can seem them on Namecoin's wiki (scroll to the bottom): https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome https://wiki.namecoin.info/index.php?title=Welcome

Cyther606 12y ago

ONS is using Namecoin. Namecoin isn't free to use, is it? I'm curious to know what is the business model behind this and onename.io, since they must pay to add entries to the Namecoin blockchain.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]