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: Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT>
  • To: "discuss AT" <discuss AT>
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Proposal: .bit / Namecoin peering
  • Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 08:55:27 -0500

On May 11, 2014, at 8:19, Alex Nordlund <deep.alexander AT> wrote:

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.
So no, there has been absolutely no interest, much less enough to warrant 2G "zone files." Yet another pet project within the community.

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.
This isn't a comparison of who has the most damn bots. It's a question of whether or not something we do NOT run is worth starting to run.

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?
What don't you get here? This isn't for you, this is for OpenNIC users. If you want OpenNIC to mandate a feature it should
1.) have value (fail)
2.) not cause problems (fail)
3.) be something SOMEONE here has control over (fail)

There's nothing positive about this idea and about a dozen negatives.

Again not a comparison, we already run .bbs.

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.

I made these points before. They were completely ignored, just as (even in replies) they are being ignored now. Add to that the fact that there was no proposal, there was a vague comment made that resulted in no information being given about who would do what how when why. For fuck's sake, hfgl. Enjoy mandating a 2 gigabyte zone on every T1 operator for, as has been repeatedly proven, no reason.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page