Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

    My understanding is that a member of OpenNIc decided to add NameCoin
    .bit domains as a way to expand opennic into cryptocurrency.  It
    seemed like an interesting idea at the time and opennic members
    voted to approve the addition.  As far as I know, we've never had a
    representative from NameCoin here to discuss the domains, but I
    could be wrong.
    
    The problem is that .bit domains are anonymous, and opennic's
    resolution of those domains opened up the possibility of malware
    operators to use .bit domains to serve their malicious content. 
    Basically it provided the opportunity to protect these people behind
    another layer of obscurity.  We weren't even aware of this issue
    until Spamhaus started blocking several of our servers without
    warning.  There has been a lot of discussion about this, a lot of
    arguing, and a lot of different viewpoints about the merits of
    NameCoin, but at this point I think what it comes down to is whether
    or not NameCoin is beneficial to opennic in any way, weighed against
    any harm our association with them may be causing against the
    opennic project.

On 06/13/2019 08:06 AM, kevin wrote:

This surprised me at first.  I didn't think there was any problem with
namecoin.

I had to look back in some conversations, but I had met someone using
EmerDNS in some Skycoin.net chats and seemed they are happy.  Skycoin
devs claim they don't need peering, but I'm trying to advance that
conversation with them, anyhow.  I see a need there.

Just to comment on the article listed, sounds more like a problem with
their system vs any problem with OpenNIC.  I get that OPs point, but if
anyone can peek into that network using an inproxy, it is nothing to do
with OpenNIC and everything to do with their application of DNS.

Regardless, people will complain.  Is there any CA at namecoin that was
originally discussing peering with?  If there is an issue and they have
not contacted us to stop peering, I don't see a need to do so.

My 2 cents.

Kevin



On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 20:47 -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> In addition to the points I recently brought up about NameCoin, Fusl 
> also discovered the following article where it appears one of their
> own 
> developers criticizes OpeNIC directly for making their .bit domains 
> available to our users, however nobody from their group have ever 
> contacted us to say there were any problems with our implementation
> or 
> even ask us to stop peering with them.
>
>
>       
https://namecoin.org/2018/09/24/how-centralized-inproxies-make-everyone-less-safe-case-study.html
> The previous discussion on this topic was short-lived, but seemed to 
> produce little in the way of support or dissent for .bit domains, 
> possibly meaning that there is simply very little interest in .bit
> overall.
>
> At this time I would like to call for a vote on whether we should
> keep 
> peering with NameCoin or drop all support.  The vote can be found
> here: 
> https://wiki.opennic.org/votings/drop_namecoin
>
> Due to the low volume of chat and emails at this time of year, I
> have 
> set the vote for a two-week period, ending on June 25th. Hopefully
> that 
> will give everyone interested a chance to weigh in. For those not 
> familiar with the voting page, please use your OpenNIC user account 
> credentials (the same one you use on the servers page or to sign in
> to 
> be.libre) to log in to the wiki in order to cast your vote.  Select
> if 
> you want to keep or drop .bit, then click the grey "Your Vote"
> button.
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>         
>         
>         
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>