3 ms·
I think it depends on what you're comparing the current system with, right? I mean sure if its either no hoop jumping or you have to pay some money then you can
by jfaucett 12y ago
I think it depends on what you're comparing the current system with, right? I mean sure if its either no hoop jumping or you have to pay some money then you can go figure ok the person willing to give up bucks and go through the trouble is probably a little more reliable because of that. But how is that type of system ideal or secure? Currently, ssl certs give me very little assurance that any data over the connection is not being backdoored/sniffed to whomever, that the private certs arent compromised, etc. I think we shouldn't be trusting people because of hoops they go through, but because the system we use doesnt allow fraudelent players to stay in the game. Personally, I'd like to see it head in this direction:
https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschainhttps://github.com/okTurtles/dnschain https://github.com/okTurtles/dnschainhttps://github.com/okTu...
also for some more background on some concerns with CAs see: https://konklone.com/post/certificate-authorities-are-actually-a-tremendous-problem https://konklone.com/post/certificate-authorities-are-actual...
- aroch 12y agoHow is namecoin any different? Its a pay to play system too. Decentralized CA's are nice and all but what happens when a state actor gains more than 50% of the hash power and can then make their own certs at will? DNSChain is also no better than GPG-signing all your assets in the end. You still have to trust that "greg" is the "greg" that has "greg" in DNSChain and no one has compromised "greg" I would love to see TACK implemented first. [1]http://tack.io/ http://tack.io/