4 ms·

The fundamental problem is the first come first name nature. It is not correct. If I monitor DNS changes, and when new host names pop up. If I have the resour

The fundamental problem is the first come first name nature. It is not correct. If I monitor DNS changes, and when new host names pop up. If I have the resources I can make a block-chain transaction automatically. How will my transactions (provided I also create a new walletID) for each transaction be framed as fraudulent? Without community or authoritative over-site?

oleganza 12y ago
How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names. There are essentially two ways: 1) first come, first grab. Or 2) have a central bootstrapping party that will sign off "valid" registrations. You cannot register whatever you want, but after you got your name, you can trade it freely without anyone censoring you. I was not saying that new system must necessarily map current DNS owners to new DNS 2.0 owners. These could exist in parallel. My point is to have secure "TLS with names" you must have something like what I describe, otherwise it's a waste of time. Social issues of fairness etc are secondary to the security of addressing names and servers. (Although, they could be real obstacles to adoption, I don't deny that.)
Karunamon 12y ago
I don't understand this - domain names are first come first serve anyways. Why would it be bad to have the security part of the domain handled at the same time, in the same transaction as the registration part?
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Namecoin works great in a vacuum. It would be amazing if DNS already didn't exist. But using namecoin with DNS allows for duplicate and erroneous entries in one or the other. (DNS record != Namecoin record). Currently most namecoin advocates pretend the former is the case. And it isn't, because have DNS currently. Namecoin is a complete re-invention of the system. Not a iterative improvement. My issue is that in its current state one can make a namecoin entry that is correct as far as namecoin is concerned, and incorrect as far as DNSSEC or standard DNS is concerned. Thus rendering the system in a weird state.
ryan-c 12y ago
We use a commitment scheme in Namecoin. There is a NAME_NEW transaction that is done first that secretly reserves the name. This transaction is then spent, a minimum of 12 blocks later with a NAME_FIRSTUPDATE which reveals the name and sets the initial data for it. It would be quite difficult to do what you suggest unless you can pull off a 51% attack on Namecoin for at least several hours, and if you can do that you probably do it to Bitcoin as well.

oleganza 12y ago

How to "fairly" distribute names is orthogonal problem to the one "how to stay on the same page" for already registered names. There are essentially two ways: 1) first come, first grab. Or 2) have a central bootstrapping party that will sign off "valid" registrations. You cannot register whatever you want, but after you got your name, you can trade it freely without anyone censoring you. I was not saying that new system must necessarily map current DNS owners to new DNS 2.0 owners. These could exist in parallel. My point is to have secure "TLS with names" you must have something like what I describe, otherwise it's a waste of time. Social issues of fairness etc are secondary to the security of addressing names and servers. (Although, they could be real obstacles to adoption, I don't deny that.)

Karunamon 12y ago

I don't understand this - domain names are first come first serve anyways. Why would it be bad to have the security part of the domain handled at the same time, in the same transaction as the registration part?

valarauca1 12y ago
Namecoin works great in a vacuum. It would be amazing if DNS already didn't exist. But using namecoin with DNS allows for duplicate and erroneous entries in one or the other. (DNS record != Namecoin record). Currently most namecoin advocates pretend the former is the case. And it isn't, because have DNS currently. Namecoin is a complete re-invention of the system. Not a iterative improvement. My issue is that in its current state one can make a namecoin entry that is correct as far as namecoin is concerned, and incorrect as far as DNSSEC or standard DNS is concerned. Thus rendering the system in a weird state.

ryan-c 12y ago

We use a commitment scheme in Namecoin. There is a NAME_NEW transaction that is done first that secretly reserves the name. This transaction is then spent, a minimum of 12 blocks later with a NAME_FIRSTUPDATE which reveals the name and sets the initial data for it. It would be quite difficult to do what you suggest unless you can pull off a 51% attack on Namecoin for at least several hours, and if you can do that you probably do it to Bitcoin as well.