> essentially be screwed if it were enforced before then Let's Encrypt, if it goes according to plan, is only a few months away. It's not just some fairytale t

> essentially be screwed if it were enforced before then Let's Encrypt, if it goes according to plan, is only a few months away. It's not just some fairytale that we're hoping will come true someday. It could be reality very soon! It's got some pretty big names behind it, including one of the Big Three browsers, so I'd say that it has a pretty good chance of success. And if Let's Encrypt fails, surely someone else will try something similar in the near future. Some registrars are already handing out a free certificate with every domain. I got ~10 certificates in the last year alone, half of them for free (StartSSL) and the other half for $5/yr (PositiveSSL). The momentum is there, it's irreversible. Even if we don't hit $0, we're asymptotically headed toward it. Moreover, given the pace at which governments and other large organizations move, I have zero worry that HTTPS-only will be "enforced" before free certificates become widely available. Ditto for browser vendors. Chrome will not risk blocking non-HTTPS websites before the time is ripe, because if it did, people will just delete Chrome and move to another browser. This whole debate is just a bunch of FUD concerning entirely unrealistic scenarios. Why are we spreading this sickening FUD instead of, say, supporting the two well-known organizations (EFF & Mozilla) that are trying to bring free SSL to everyone?