Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Calum McAlinden <calum AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering
  • Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:22:09 +0100

Thanks Alex.

Replying to Quinn Wood here, so as not to clutter the voting thread:

On 11 May 2014 02:54, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT> wrote:

> * This is a misleading proposal, as no peering is taking place. You
> want to perform one-way (OpenNIC to Namecoin) access. As I've already
> mentioned this- at best- isn't useful in any way I find obvious.

Sorry, "peering" was the wrong word to use. It is useful where
OpenNIC users would like to access .bit and OpenNIC using a reliable
DNS server near them. Setting up a local DNS resolver is too difficult
for some users.

> * There's no charter. I don't know that one is possible, because
> nobody here is in control of the top level zone. What are you going to
> do, refuse to let people resolve using your DNS server if they
> register a domain you don't like or use their domain to crack/spam?
> Tough, their domain is still there and kicking, all with the glorious
> implicit support of OpenNIC that the anti-cracking/spaming policy was
> intended to prevent.

I do not intend to modify any domains. We still resolve the ICANN
domains, many of which contain illegal/cracking/spam websites.

> * There's no (proof of) an information, registration, and
> administration service (web-based or otherwise.) This is possible with
> Namecoin, just as you can proxy between typical DNS clients and
> namecoind.

Correct, this is not necessary as domains are registered through the
Namecoin client or through a variety of web based services.

> * There is no (proof of) a service we as a community can rely on to
> be stable and secure.
> * There is no (proof of) an admin we as a community can depend on, get
> a hold of, or boot in the ass when things are broken.

I can't really answer this. I have only been around for several
months, but I am a trustworthy server operator. You have my full
permission to "boot me in the ass" (metaphorically).

> You want to provide a service, do it on your own time- just like
> DNSCrypt and operator-specific bridges/peerings.

If you're talking about tier2s, you said yourself (with regard to
voluntary support from individual tier 2s):

"As always, I am against this kind of bypassing of consensus. We do it
or we don't do it."

Calum McAlinden

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page