New size of the value field

[sugarpuff]

Upstream Convergence uses a locally generated CA cert to make verified certs appear legitimate to Firefox

Upstream Convergence (UC for brevity) relies on third-party notaries, does it not? That's what it says after all: "Each notary can only make security decisions for the clients that have chosen to trust it"

So to my ear it is exactly as I said: clients use these notaries in a manner similar to "third-party DNS servers" that they trust.

Convergence for Namecoin does not use notaries; it uses nmcontrol as its verification source for .bit domains. [..snipped from above..] Convergence for Namecoin uses this code to make nmcontrol-verified certs work in Firefox without showing warnings. Trusting notaries is not involved in using Convergence for Namecoin, and I would not endorse any security model which requires doing so.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it would provide fantastic security, and would have the option of providing the security that you're looking for as well. Nothing would stop you from "running a local notary" yourself (i.e. having namecoind in the background), just like I run a local DNS server on my machine.

For those who either don't want (most people) or can't (mobile users) run namecoind in the background, they just put in the IP address of the DNSNMC server that they trust, and everything works beautifully.

It doesn't matter whether you endorse this or not, because as I understand your system (simply running nmcd yourself), you don't provide much meaningful extra security than a trustyworthy pinned-cert DNSNMC would, and on top of it, you provide literally zero protection to clients who cannot run your system (whether it's because they're using a mobile device, or a browser that doesn't support your extension, like Chrome). That amounts to the vast majority of internet users.

[biolizard89]

Upstream Convergence uses a locally generated CA cert to make verified certs appear legitimate to Firefox

Upstream Convergence (UC for brevity) relies on third-party notaries, does it not? That's what it says after all: "Each notary can only make security decisions for the clients that have chosen to trust it"

So to my ear it is exactly as I said: clients use these notaries in a manner similar to "third-party DNS servers" that they trust.

You specifically said "ala your Convergence model". Notaries are not my model, nor have I ever endorsed them. It is therefore definitely not "exactly as you said". Please do not misrepresent that.

Convergence for Namecoin does not use notaries; it uses nmcontrol as its verification source for .bit domains. [..snipped from above..] Convergence for Namecoin uses this code to make nmcontrol-verified certs work in Firefox without showing warnings. Trusting notaries is not involved in using Convergence for Namecoin, and I would not endorse any security model which requires doing so.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it would provide fantastic security, and would have the option of providing the security that you're looking for as well. Nothing would stop you from "running a local notary" yourself (i.e. having namecoind in the background), just like I run a local DNS server on my machine.

For those who either don't want (most people) or can't (mobile users) run namecoind in the background, they just put in the IP address of the DNSNMC server that they trust, and everything works beautifully.

Convergence for Namecoin will soon support using an nmcontrol instance that isn't running on the default host/port. This basically does what you're talking about. It should be emphasized that this should only be used with servers that you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your Firefox .bit traffic.

It doesn't matter whether you endorse this or not, because as I understand your system (simply running nmcd yourself), you don't provide much meaningful extra security than a trustyworthy pinned-cert DNSNMC would, and on top of it, you provide literally zero protection to clients who cannot run your system (whether it's because they're using a mobile device, or a browser that doesn't support your extension, like Chrome). That amounts to the vast majority of internet users.

I find this statement somewhat hilarious. It is technically true that Convergence for Namecoin doesn't provide any additional security over a trustworthy DNS server with DANE support that is getting its data from the Namecoin blockchain. But can you find a server which you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your .bit traffic? Chances are you have to be running this server yourself. "Mr. Wright, I'm unimpressed with your flying machine, it doesn't provide anything that I couldn't get by becoming an animagus and turning into a bat." I don't have any particular experience with mobile development, so I haven't messed with that (maybe later). Chrome shouldn't be trusted with anything at all critical, due to the well-documented privacy issues in both Chrome itself and Google as a company.

[sugarpuff]

So to my ear it is exactly as I said: clients use these notaries in a manner similar to "third-party DNS servers" that they trust.

You specifically said "ala your Convergence model". Notaries are not my model, nor have I ever endorsed them. It is therefore definitely not "exactly as you said". Please do not misrepresent that.

Hmm, it seems there was some confusion. I'm referring to my first use of the term "third-party DNS servers", which was not in reference to your fork of Convergence, but the upstream branch:

With Convergence, the pinned cert is trusted because it's generated on your own computer. You can't do that for a third-party DNS server....

Huh? Convergence has "notaries" that you must trust. These are effectively "third-party DNS servers", are they not?

This space intentionally left (almost) blank.

Convergence for Namecoin will soon support using an nmcontrol instance that isn't running on the default host/port. This basically does what you're talking about. It should be emphasized that this should only be used with servers that you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your Firefox .bit traffic.

Sorry, don't think I understand, could you clarify what you mean by "what you're talking about"? How is changing the port what I'm talking about?

It doesn't matter whether you endorse this or not, because as I understand your system (simply running nmcd yourself), you don't provide much meaningful extra security than a trustyworthy pinned-cert DNSNMC would, and on top of it, you provide literally zero protection to clients who cannot run your system (whether it's because they're using a mobile device, or a browser that doesn't support your extension, like Chrome). That amounts to the vast majority of internet users.

I find this statement somewhat hilarious. It is technically true that Convergence for Namecoin doesn't provide any additional security over a trustworthy DNS server with DANE support that is getting its data from the Namecoin blockchain. But can you find a server which you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your .bit traffic?

Well, this is obviously a personal question. For me, the answer is yes. No, I'm not running it. For you, it might be "no", but as I've mentioned, you're welcome to run your own rather easily.

Chances are you have to be running this server yourself. "Mr. Wright, I'm unimpressed with your flying machine, it doesn't provide anything that I couldn't get by becoming an animagus and turning into a bat." I don't have any particular experience with mobile development, so I haven't messed with that (maybe later). Chrome shouldn't be trusted with anything at all critical, due to the well-documented privacy issues in both Chrome itself and Google as a company.

Hmm. OK, so it sounds like you believe Chrome users don't "deserve" robust security, is that correct?

I must say, that's a rather disappointing answer. I'm not sure what you find hilarious about that.

[biolizard89]

Convergence for Namecoin will soon support using an nmcontrol instance that isn't running on the default host/port. This basically does what you're talking about. It should be emphasized that this should only be used with servers that you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your Firefox .bit traffic.

Sorry, don't think I understand, could you clarify what you mean by "what you're talking about"? How is changing the port what I'm talking about?

Run an nmcontrol instance on a non-localhost server which you trust, and enter its host/port in the Convergence for Namecoin settings. How is that not what you were talking about?

It doesn't matter whether you endorse this or not, because as I understand your system (simply running nmcd yourself), you don't provide much meaningful extra security than a trustyworthy pinned-cert DNSNMC would, and on top of it, you provide literally zero protection to clients who cannot run your system (whether it's because they're using a mobile device, or a browser that doesn't support your extension, like Chrome). That amounts to the vast majority of internet users.

I find this statement somewhat hilarious. It is technically true that Convergence for Namecoin doesn't provide any additional security over a trustworthy DNS server with DANE support that is getting its data from the Namecoin blockchain. But can you find a server which you trust with the technical capacity to hijack, censor, and surveil all of your .bit traffic?

Well, this is obviously a personal question. For me, the answer is yes. No, I'm not running it. For you, it might be "no", but as I've mentioned, you're welcome to run your own rather easily.

As said above, you will be able to run nmcontrol on a host which isn't localhost. So if you fully trust a remote host, you will be able to use it.

Chances are you have to be running this server yourself. "Mr. Wright, I'm unimpressed with your flying machine, it doesn't provide anything that I couldn't get by becoming an animagus and turning into a bat." I don't have any particular experience with mobile development, so I haven't messed with that (maybe later). Chrome shouldn't be trusted with anything at all critical, due to the well-documented privacy issues in both Chrome itself and Google as a company.

Hmm. OK, so it sounds like you believe Chrome users don't "deserve" robust security, is that correct?

I must say, that's a rather disappointing answer. I'm not sure what you find hilarious about that.

Chrome users simply cannot obtain good security/privacy due to problems with Chrome and Google. This is not something that I can fix. As a result, I don't have much interest in working on Chrome. If someone else wants to implement something like Convergence for Namecoin on Chrome, they're welcome to do so, but they'll be wasting their time in the sense of achieving strong security/privacy.

I think it's a bit offensive on your part to imply that because I'm not developing a Chrome extension, that must mean that I think Chrome users don't deserve good security. I happen to be fairly busy, I have to prioritize my time. Since I don't see you offering to pay anyone to develop a Chrome extension, I'm confused why you think you can criticize me for spending my time on platforms which are already more secure to begin with.

[sugarpuff]

Chrome users simply cannot obtain good security/privacy due to problems with Chrome and Google. This is not something that I can fix. As a result, I don't have much interest in working on Chrome. If someone else wants to implement something like Convergence for Namecoin on Chrome, they're welcome to do so, but they'll be wasting their time in the sense of achieving strong security/privacy.

I think it's a bit offensive on your part to imply that because I'm not developing a Chrome extension, that must mean that I think Chrome users don't deserve good security. I happen to be fairly busy, I have to prioritize my time. Since I don't see you offering to pay anyone to develop a Chrome extension, I'm confused why you think you can criticize me for spending my time on platforms which are already more secure to begin with.

I meant no offense. I think you're misunderstanding me.

I was not criticizing you for not developing a Chrome extension. Not at all. That would be rather silly of me to do.

On the contrary, I'd like to thank you for your great work on all of this.

I'll reply in more detail to your post in a few hours. I just didn't want to leave you with any false understanding before heading out.

[biolizard89]

Chrome users simply cannot obtain good security/privacy due to problems with Chrome and Google. This is not something that I can fix. As a result, I don't have much interest in working on Chrome. If someone else wants to implement something like Convergence for Namecoin on Chrome, they're welcome to do so, but they'll be wasting their time in the sense of achieving strong security/privacy.

I think it's a bit offensive on your part to imply that because I'm not developing a Chrome extension, that must mean that I think Chrome users don't deserve good security. I happen to be fairly busy, I have to prioritize my time. Since I don't see you offering to pay anyone to develop a Chrome extension, I'm confused why you think you can criticize me for spending my time on platforms which are already more secure to begin with.

I meant no offense. I think you're misunderstanding me.

I was not criticizing you for not developing a Chrome extension. Not at all. That would be rather silly of me to do.

On the contrary, I'd like to thank you for your great work on all of this.

I'll reply in more detail to your post in a few hours. I just didn't want to leave you with any false understanding before heading out.

No worries, sorry if I came across as harsh. This Internet thing has a habit of making tone ambiguous.

[phelix]

Please stay on topic or move to another thread.

Consensus on size is still 5k.

[sugarpuff]

Please stay on topic or move to another thread.

Roger.

Consensus on size is still 5k.

What consensus?

The issues raised in these two posts have not been addressed:

https://dot-bit.bit/forum/viewtopic.php ... dac8#p6970
https://dot-bit.bit/forum/viewtopic.php ... dac8#p6975

[virtual_master]

The issues raised in these two posts have not been addressed:

https://dot-bit.bit/forum/viewtopic.php ... dac8#p6970
https://dot-bit.bit/forum/viewtopic.php ... dac8#p6975

Thank you for worrying about what happens with Namecoin in the next 2 generations.
You are a really namecoiner.
But in one or two generations as you addressed storage will be not a problem.

If you look this graphic in the last 30 years(one generation) the storage price became with 3 million times cheaper. In two generations it will be 10 000 billion times cheaper so don't worry about the 20 TB blockchain size (in 2 generations) because the storage of it will cost only 0.000 000 000 1 USD.
So even if the blockchain size would be 1 billion times higher than you modestly estimated(1 billion X 20 TB) it will cost the storage of it only 0.1 USD and the average US citizen will earn in 60 years much more USD then today.
But it could be even much cheaper if the quantum-computer will be invented.
Then could be even uploaded the scanned human brain in the Namecoin blockchain:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291020.0
Actually it is not intended to limit the value field to 5k because of the storage price, just to prevent some eventually uncontrolled abusive use of the blockchain.

[sugarpuff]

Thank you for worrying about what happens with Namecoin in the next 2 generations.
You are a really namecoiner.

Why thank you.

But in one or two generations as you addressed storage will be not a problem.

Estimating that far out involves a significant amount of guesswork.

Is the current limit a real problem? If not, why are we attempting to fix something that is not broken?

How about we wait until we have a really good reason for increasing the field size before doing it?

Here are some potential (and real) problems with increasing it now:

• It takes a long time to bring up new clients because they have a lot of catching up to do.
• It takes a long time to bring up DNS servers because they have a lot of catching up to do.
• Storage space is cheap, and getting cheaper, but bandwidth capacity and price is not following the same curve (I don't think).
• We might no longer be keeping up pace with Moore's law (see wikipedia: "However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has growth slowing at the end of 2013"). We'll likely encounter this with storage space too (there is, after all, a physical limit).

So, before we create new problems for ourselves (unnecessarily, I might add), how about we address the issues above and elsewhere first, and then if we actually need, talk about increasing the size of the blockchain.