It’s possible to buy a snapshot of the entire DNS as it stands (don’t have the link, but have looked it up before). If we put that data on the SAFENet and create a browser plugin that accesses the data it could bypass the existing DNS system. Could also submit new entries and changes via the plugin. Users of the plugin could be paid in safecoin to verify DNS entries. (maybe charge a reasonable fee in safecoin to cover cost of storage/access/verification).
This would block all DNS metadata collection by various security agencies. It would also stifle government blocking of DNS.
Well unless there are specific questions I’d save the details for the white paper … which I won’t be writing any time too soon as my plate is full. I leave it for someone else if they are keen, otherwise I’ll get to it in six months or so
“Of course, why not put all data directly on the SAFE network”, but it would redo the 1970 web server, and introduce a new type of “archive node” : a publicly known old-school server, but with a private DNS; could be useful for the special case where you want to explcitly store and publish specific public data
So, you mean like to copy the entire I-net 1.0? Two reasons I don’t think that’s a good idea. One is that they really aren’t compatible and much functionality would be lost by merely copying the data from the old to the new (and copying is all we’d be able to do given the mass variety of code that is out there). Secondly, what I’m proposing is much easier to do than replicating the whole ball of wax, it is however only a stop-gap measure to facilitate anonymity on I-net 1.0 – while also a means of providing some publicity for Safe-net.
And what’s there to stop anyone from poisoning your dns database?
If you only rely on your plugin users to keep the database clean, they are your problem. Look at what’s happening with social media when for instance Putin has created an entire office of trolls.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of a distributed dns database, but I think there are a number of problems that make it somewhat impractical.
I thought of that when I came up with the idea. Basically, I’d keep three versions of the list - in a sort of similar way that debian has three versions of it’s linux – stable, testing, and unstable.
So as I envision it, plugin would allow switching to any of the three lists and also have a quick switch to allow people to use normal dns.
Any new address would go into unstable and work it’s way via confirmations/reputation to the stable list.
When visiting any site on any particular list, users can rate the site in a few different ways and it will have some various means of bot-blocking. It’s not perfect and powerful interests will be able to influence it. Perhaps a way to store a local dns list as well (dns bookmarking?).
People want this stuff to work as now or simpler and that means zero effort.
You must get DNS entries from somewhere and I am failing to see why would your DNS queries be more reliable and trustworthy than mine, and by extension I’d rather use my non-US-based DNS server than something that may be even less reliable.
DNS service is definitively not a low-hanging fruit and shouldn’t be reinvented for MaidSafe.
There are browser extensions that people use now where sites are rated (e.g. WOT). People tend to put value into something if they are getting value back out. Yes, there are attacks against it, there are attacks against everything. As to whether such would be bad enough to make such a system unworkable is unknown.
You should know that this is a value statement and everyone has differing values (I believe you’ve studied some Austrian economics?). So I don’t really get what you are saying here. I think the value of such a service would be appreciated by many.
Who knows what the reliability of this proposed system would be until tested. If the Current system undergoes more and more attacks by governments working to stifle the flow of information, then who knows how the reliability will compare. As this proposed system hasn’t even been seriously designed yet, seems impossible to say what solutions might be developed by the time it would launch.
It’s not for SafeNet, it’s for the regular Internet. Also “should” and “shouldn’t” as applied to other individuals are a form of hubris. I really don’t understand how you can be pro-Austrian-econ and then apply your personal judgments about ideas to everyone universally, when one of the core principles of Austrian economic theory is that value is subjective.
If you get your data from the same DNS server(s) as I, how can it be more reliable?
Your “DNS evaluators” would have to be properly rewarded or compensated to (correctly) vote in larger numbers than my paid voters and as I recall it costs about $30 bucks to buy 10K Facebook friends, so not too hard to guess.
It’s just my opinion, of course. I didn’t say “must not”.
My opinion is based on the fact that I believe it is not feasible. I stated that several times on this forum - and specifically in my posts related to this very question (of re-inventing the wheel with a MaidSafe flavor, for example just 1 day ago here) - that I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. There’s nothing un-Austrian about that.
Untrue. Evaluators will work for free, just as they currently do for any open-source project, just as they currently do for the WOT browser extension. Why? because they see value in it that you apparently do not.
IMO, it seems you contradict yourself. E.g.:
Here you clearly imply that everyone’s opinion is the same as yours, and thus everyone has an identical sense of value. In other words you are expressing that this is not just your opinion. You are saying everyone agree’s with you. This is either confusion on your part or sophistry.
Edit: I also think you may be misunderstanding something here – my proposed system would initially copy the existing DNS, and perhaps take update snapshots which would go into seperate lists (as previously indicated:stable, testing, unstable). If governments block a particular DNS, my proposed system wouldn’t immediately erase the entry – people would verify the change. In my proposed system, unless domain names changed hands, they’d likely be permanent – although we’d have to consider what the storage cost on SAFENet is.
I’m ready to bet you (a BTC equivalent of) $100 (or any lower value of your choice) that no such solution based on MaidSafe will be launched before Jan 1, 2017.
Escrow: any safenetwork.io forum moderator of your choice.
On this forum I posted one or two polls which show that a majority of Web users don’t care about privacy. Some do care, but if they also need to work for it, then the percentage becomes tiny (lower than 1%).
There are MaidSafe users who do care about data privacy, but they will tend to use MaidSafe sites rather than the Internet (and in case of Internet sites, they’ll prefer to use Tor and any DNS-enhancing solution for it, rather than something that doesn’t work when their MaidSafe client isn’t running).
Governments don’t block DNS, they just block traffic to the IP that DNS resolves, or redirect you to a local search engine owned by their cronies.
Are you saying there’s another loophole in your idea?
Recap:
Data updates aren’t free
Each update generates a PUT
Each feedback generates a PUT
You’d have to pay for about 500,000 PUTs a day (my guesstimate which doesn’t include without robo-attacks such as the one perpetrated by China on Github that would cost you 000’s of dollars)
You wouldn’t charge for this service (would you pay for it by yourself?)
You wouldn’t pay for user feedback
This service would work only inside of MaidSafe browsers/apps, while it wouldn’t work for Tor or any other apps users have
I don’t bet against others on the future, I invest in it.
Incorrect, they often ‘take down’ sites like kickass and thepiratebay by removing their DNS entries.
All new ideas have to be adjusted to fit reality. This ‘loophole’ as you call it, isn’t unique to this idea. Surely you are intelligent enough to get that. Hence I think you are implying to readers that I am stupid - so you are engaging in a subtle ad-hom attack. IMO, not a good way to win arguments.
nope, that’s why we’d buy a subscription and update from unstable to testing to stable as people rate the new and updated entries only.
unknown. I’ve speculated both directions. I don’t know what the cost is, but it seems likely we may have to charge something somewhere. When I get around to working on a whitepaper, then I’ll sort the cost - but that needs to wait until SafeNet is up and running.
Possibly a Tor service could be created to put this on Tor without having to install SafeNet -depending on how many hits the server gets. We’d encourage people to install the SafeNet though.
Okay, I extend my offer to any one (single) reader and increase the odds to 3.3:1 (that is, if anyone wants to risk $30 to win $100, a 333% return on your investment, let me know).
You may need to brush up your DNS skills. Those domains were made inaccessible by domain seizure, not by “removing their DNS entries” (as if the gov’t said to the DNS registrar “Hey, I want you to remove the entries for www.kickass.to”. When a domain is seized, the owner loses access to it and the entire domain is done. Your idea does absolutely nothing to mitigate domain seizure issues (unless you’re proposing a crowdsourced DNS cloud, which would be ridiculous).
Any MaidSafe user who wants access to content provided on such sites will be able to get it on the MaidSafe network. But feel free to design a MaidSafe service that is of little or no use to MaidSafe users.
In the big scheme of things (what MaidSafe seems to be concerned about), these so-called pirate sites are irrelevant. For your info, here’s how censorship that matters works in 2015.
Recently observed activity shows that the infamous censorship apparatus the Great Firewall of China changed its method of redirecting users from sites deemed dangerous by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Previous to early January 2015, users within China trying to access restricted sites such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter were simply redirected to a block of IP addresses, many of which were nonexistent. After a short while, users would receive a timeout message or an error message saying the website was unavailable.
On this forum on various occasions I made several posts in which I explained that these half-thought attempts aren’t a good idea and (on the high level) why. But you keep pushing and picking arguments, so I’m now highlighting various weaknesses of your idea. If that makes you unhappy, so be it. Feel free to prove me wrong with your investment in this project.
Well, possibly you’ll end up just re-implementing something that already exists and works without MaidSafe, which is what I’ve been saying all along and the only approach that makes sense.
This isn’t a betting platform. @janitor, I get that you like betting, or are using the offering of bets as a way of showing how serious you are about an opinion. You can do this just by saying so, no need for bets, and peronsally I think it would be more helpful if you let your reasoning stand behind your opinions, provide evidence for it etc.
Either way I don’t think we should encourage using the site for things that are nothing to do with SAFE such as commerce, or betting, unless it is relevant or in support of the project. If anyone would like to discuss this, by all means reply here and I’ll move it to a different topic so the community can air their views.
I’ve read through your comments on this topic and they have no merit. I think you are definitely working to poison the well here – which means you have an ulterior agenda. I have nothing more to say to you and will ignore you from here on out on this forum.
