Discuss mailing list

[Alex Nordlund <deep.alexander AT gmail.com>]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com> 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.Have you seen a real world desire for this that is best fulfilled by every T1 operating this access? 1.8G is a lot of space to use [on a nameservers of OpenNIC's scale] for something that's only interesting to you. Someone who knows better than me may correct me, but this would probably be larger than all our other zones combined.

Traffic goes both ways ;-)

But this is also my fault, I am not a native speaker of English and my dictionary was not very specific on peering.

 

I don't want to see OpenNIC become a one-way gateway to every DNS alt-root out there. Small, unorganized alt-roots are bad.

With the amount of merged-miners out there you could argue that Namecoin is way larger than OpenNIC.

 

Yes it is necessary. Otherwise there's no point in us running it. See above. To expand upon my requests for evidence of real demand, as well as notable sites people would be gaining access to- and in an absence of contrary information- I submit that people interested in Namecoin will probably be able willing to use it properly. In a way that doesn't undermined the decentralization and validation it offers. Using the client, a helper proxy DNS server, and their own DNS settings.

If I already have a .bit domain it's irrelevant to me if there's services where I can get another one. Also, the vote in itself will also show if there is any interest in .bit (from our side).

Just out of curiosity, which one has greater userbase: .bit or .bbs?

 

That comment isn't remotely directed towards independently-run features. It's directed towards the "Hey everyone, add this TLD without proper consensus and then let's vote on it when it's already the norm to run it!" attitude we were getting a while back as well as any future, unrelated consensus-bypassing weaseling in new TLD matters.

The OpenNIC charter is quite clear on how voting works and the discussion turned quiet 6 days ago (after 6 days of discussion), if there's a consensus needed it should've been reached there, you've been part of the discussion  so you have no excuse for not bringing up these (mostly valid) concerns and points before.

Best regards,

Alex