Reserving the .bit TLD

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by biolizard89 »

There's a draft at IETF which would reserve .i2p and .onion among other TLD's, so that they could not be used as commercial TLD's. Obviously this is important for Tor and I2P. However, they don't include .bit. Here's a link to the draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grotho ... p-names-00

I think we should contact the draft authors about getting .bit added... would it be good for the Namecoin community leaders (khal / snailbrain / phelix / domob / moa / virtual_master / me / anyone I'm forgetting) to co-write feedback, or should we make feedback individually? I'd like to co-write feedback as it makes us appear a bit more organized / professional... but I don't feel really strongly.

Thanks to an anonymous member of #namecoin for bringing this up.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by virtual_master »

biolizard89 wrote:There's a draft at IETF which would reserve .i2p and .onion among other TLD's, so that they could not be used as commercial TLD's. Obviously this is important for Tor and I2P. However, they don't include .bit. Here's a link to the draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grotho ... p-names-00

I think we should contact the draft authors about getting .bit added... would it be good for the Namecoin community leaders (khal / snailbrain / phelix / domob / moa / virtual_master / me / anyone I'm forgetting) to co-write feedback, or should we make feedback individually? I'd like to co-write feedback as it makes us appear a bit more organized / professional... but I don't feel really strongly.

Thanks to an anonymous member of #namecoin for bringing this up.
Thank you for bringing up this point which wasn't discussed until now.
Some considerations:

1. Namecoin is a decentralized network so it wouldn't be wise to act as centralized one. (for the developers, miners and other activists of the network we shouldn't use the word leader, which would be suggestive for a centralized structure)
A letter commonly signed would also act in a centralized way.
A couple of us could write and make them attentive that there is a decentralized project is already using the .bit TLD.
If we ask them we would somehow recognize that we are dependent of their decision. Making them attentive that .bit is already is use is just to avoid confusion by the users if the TLD would be given to a centralized service provider.
Which is the case for now ?

2. Most important is that the .bit domain shouldn't be dependent of any central authority. In a worst case scenario what would be if a centralized TLD .bit would be registered ? If that would destroy the .bit Namecoin concept then we are dependent of a centralized authority and we are at least not 100% decentralized for the .domain system.
.bit browsing with web-proxy, with system-wide DNS settings, with system-wide DNS proxy and with convergence are able to enforce the proper Namecoin .bit websites. But I am not sure if(by the actual set-up) all this browsing methods would act properly in case of a TLD conflict. But at least it is possible for all to configure to act so.

3. How would behave a browser if an .onion or .i2p address is requested and the TLD is used by a centralized service also ?
We shouldn't forget that tor is in a better position in this aspect because it is supported and financed by the US government. (who is interested that dissidents in other countries can express other opinion than the official one)
We don't have such backing so our design should be more resistant to eventually double use of the .bit TLD.
http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by phelix »

Good find. I sent an eMail.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by phelix »

Turns out they know about Namecoin and .bit already and seem to feel well-disposed about it. CG is ok with including it, have not heard from the others yet.

Here is a first suggestion for us to improve on:
diff --git a/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01.xml b/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01.xml
index 4fb1e97..f597282 100644
--- a/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01.xml
+++ b/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-01.xml
@@ -380,6 +380,34 @@

</section>

+ <section anchor="dot-bit"
+ title="The ".bit" Timeline System pTLD">
+ <t>The &quot:.bit" pTLD provides a name space
+ where names are registered via transactions in the
+ NameCoin currency <xref target="NameCoin"/>. Like
+ BitCoins, NameCoins are created using a proof-of-work
+ calculation, which is also used to establish a
+ decentralized, multi-party consensus on the valid
+ transaction history, and thus the set of registered
+ names and their values <xref
+ target="SquareZooko"/>.</t>
+
+ <t>The NameCoin used in a transaction to register
+ a name in ".bit" is lost. This is not
+ a fundamental problem as more coins can be generated
+ via mining (proof-of-work calculations). The
+ registration cost is set to decrease over time, to
+ prevent early adopters from registering too many
+ names.</t>
+
+ <t>The owner of a name can update the associated value
+ by issueing an update, which is a transaction that
+ uses a special coin which is generated as change
+ during the registration operation. If a name is not
+ updated for a long time, the registration expires.</t>
+
+ </section>
+
</section>

<section title="Security Considerations">
@@ -613,6 +641,23 @@
</front>
</reference>

+ <reference anchor="SquareZooko"
+ target="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko">
+ <front>
+ <title>Squaring the Triangle: Secure, Decentralized, Human-Readable Names</title>
+ <author initials="A." fullname="Aaron Swartz" surname="Swartz" />
+ <date year="2011" />
+ </front>
+ </reference>
+
+ <reference anchor="NameCoin"
+ target="http://dot-bit.org/">
+ <front>
+ <title>Namecoin DNS - DotBIT Project</title>
+ <date year="2013" />
+ </front>
+ </reference>
+
&RFC1928;

&RFC4648;
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

jprider63
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:18 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by jprider63 »

My question is what happens if IETF reserves the .bit domain? Are they just going to sit on it, or will they point the .bit TLD to namecoin dns servers? It'd be great if they do the former and Namecoin usability would drastically grow. If they plan to sit on it though, I'd suggest we ask them not to reserve it and we could make a bid to reserve it ourselves.

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by biolizard89 »

jprider63 wrote:My question is what happens if IETF reserves the .bit domain? Are they just going to sit on it, or will they point the .bit TLD to namecoin dns servers? It'd be great if they do the former and Namecoin usability would drastically grow. If they plan to sit on it though, I'd suggest we ask them not to reserve it and we could make a bid to reserve it ourselves.
1. IETF doesn't control whose nameservers get used; they simply write standards.
2. You don't seem to know what "former" means.
3. Using random DNS servers that claim to import data from the Namecoin blockchain is not a safe way to browse .bit websites, particularly if everyone is using the same mandated DNS server as you suggest.
4. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to reserve the .bit TLD as a commercial TLD? Whom are you suggesting pay that fee?
5. What makes you think that a large corporation wouldn't be able to outbid us, if we did want to reserve it commercially?
6. What makes you think it would be good for the Namecoin project for one entity to have commercial control of the .bit TLD? Isn't that exactly what the .bit TLD is designed to avoid?

tl;dr: the proposal should definitely be applied to .bit.

@phelix: I think Namecoin should have the "c" as lowercase, correct? Other than that, it looks acceptable, although improvements would be possible.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by phelix »

biolizard89 wrote: @phelix: I think Namecoin should have the "c" as lowercase, correct? Other than that, it looks acceptable, although improvements would be possible.
Agreed. It looks a little as if Aaroon came up with the idea... he did not.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

jprider63
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:18 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by jprider63 »

biolizard89 wrote: 2. You don't seem to know what "former" means.
Oops, my mistake.
biolizard89 wrote: 3. Using random DNS servers that claim to import data from the Namecoin blockchain is not a safe way to browse .bit websites, particularly if everyone is using the same mandated DNS server as you suggest.
4. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to reserve the .bit TLD as a commercial TLD? Whom are you suggesting pay that fee?
I was thinking it might be reasonable to start a non-profit organization who is responsible for purchasing the TLD and maintaining a dns server that accurately relays namecoin d/ information to the rest of the internet. This server software could be open source as well. While the cost would be expensive, it is not out of reach. Perhaps we could convince a few large corporations to donate to support the effort of creating a more secure internet.
biolizard89 wrote: 6. What makes you think it would be good for the Namecoin project for one entity to have commercial control of the .bit TLD? Isn't that exactly what the .bit TLD is designed to avoid?
I agree that it is not ideal for one entity to control the .bit TLD. The problem is that if we want Namecoin to become adopted, it has to be simple and usable. Average users aren't going to configure custom DNS settings or install extra software, so this means we should try to integrate with the existing internet infrastructure (at least for now).

Having one entity control the TLD isn't the worst either. Any user that is concerned about the entity's trustworthiness can easily audit the entity by querying the Namecoin network directly and comparing the results.

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by biolizard89 »

jprider63 wrote:
biolizard89 wrote: 2. You don't seem to know what "former" means.
Oops, my mistake.
biolizard89 wrote: 3. Using random DNS servers that claim to import data from the Namecoin blockchain is not a safe way to browse .bit websites, particularly if everyone is using the same mandated DNS server as you suggest.
4. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to reserve the .bit TLD as a commercial TLD? Whom are you suggesting pay that fee?
I was thinking it might be reasonable to start a non-profit organization who is responsible for purchasing the TLD and maintaining a dns server that accurately relays namecoin d/ information to the rest of the internet. This server software could be open source as well. While the cost would be expensive, it is not out of reach. Perhaps we could convince a few large corporations to donate to support the effort of creating a more secure internet.
biolizard89 wrote: 6. What makes you think it would be good for the Namecoin project for one entity to have commercial control of the .bit TLD? Isn't that exactly what the .bit TLD is designed to avoid?
I agree that it is not ideal for one entity to control the .bit TLD. The problem is that if we want Namecoin to become adopted, it has to be simple and usable. Average users aren't going to configure custom DNS settings or install extra software, so this means we should try to integrate with the existing internet infrastructure (at least for now).

Having one entity control the TLD isn't the worst either. Any user that is concerned about the entity's trustworthiness can easily audit the entity by querying the Namecoin network directly and comparing the results.
There is so much lack of basic understanding of both Namecoin and security and usability in general in this post that I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. Let me just say that while I don't speak for anyone but myself, I am confident that the Namecoin community has no interest in your plan. You should look into OpenNIC if you want a centralized DNS which is controlled by an entity other than ICANN.

It also occurs to me that you may just be trolling. If that is the case, do it somewhere else.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

jprider63
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:18 am

Re: Reserving the .bit TLD

Post by jprider63 »

biolizard89 wrote:
jprider63 wrote:
biolizard89 wrote: 2. You don't seem to know what "former" means.
Oops, my mistake.
biolizard89 wrote: 3. Using random DNS servers that claim to import data from the Namecoin blockchain is not a safe way to browse .bit websites, particularly if everyone is using the same mandated DNS server as you suggest.
4. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to reserve the .bit TLD as a commercial TLD? Whom are you suggesting pay that fee?
I was thinking it might be reasonable to start a non-profit organization who is responsible for purchasing the TLD and maintaining a dns server that accurately relays namecoin d/ information to the rest of the internet. This server software could be open source as well. While the cost would be expensive, it is not out of reach. Perhaps we could convince a few large corporations to donate to support the effort of creating a more secure internet.
biolizard89 wrote: 6. What makes you think it would be good for the Namecoin project for one entity to have commercial control of the .bit TLD? Isn't that exactly what the .bit TLD is designed to avoid?
I agree that it is not ideal for one entity to control the .bit TLD. The problem is that if we want Namecoin to become adopted, it has to be simple and usable. Average users aren't going to configure custom DNS settings or install extra software, so this means we should try to integrate with the existing internet infrastructure (at least for now).

Having one entity control the TLD isn't the worst either. Any user that is concerned about the entity's trustworthiness can easily audit the entity by querying the Namecoin network directly and comparing the results.
There is so much lack of basic understanding of both Namecoin and security and usability in general in this post that I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. Let me just say that while I don't speak for anyone but myself, I am confident that the Namecoin community has no interest in your plan. You should look into OpenNIC if you want a centralized DNS which is controlled by an entity other than ICANN.

It also occurs to me that you may just be trolling. If that is the case, do it somewhere else.
Please fill me in. I am not trolling. I am genuinely interested in how Namecoin can make the internet more secure and decentralized.

Also, it is still possible for an untrusted entity to store and provide information in a cryptographically verified manner. Have you heard of authenticated data structures?

Post Reply