Jeremy Rand: > George Kadianakis: >> >> I made a wiki page for Naming Systems here: >> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/OnionServiceNamingSystems >> >> Feel free to start adding information and links and make it look nicer. >> >> Let's try to build a good knowledge base that will help us take informed >> decisions. Please try to maintain some sort of consistent structure through the >> document. >> >> (In the unlikely case where the doc gets out of hand, I will try to find some >> time to curate it.) >> >> Thanks! :) > > Hello! I just had a chance to look through the latest state of the wiki > page (thanks to everyone who's been expanding it). I've added several > items to the security properties and drawbacks sections of Namecoin, and > made a few trivial corrections; hopefully none of them are > controversial. (If anyone thinks I made a mistake, please let me know.) > > I notice that kernelcorn added an item to the "drawbacks" section of > Namecoin, which says "Hard to authenticate names." It's not entirely > clear to me what is meant by this item, so it's hard for me to evaluate > its accuracy. > > Any chance Jesse could elaborate on this? > > Cheers, > -Jeremy > > PS: Happy to see that OnioNS is still being worked on -- I think it's > great to have more of the solution space explored and more options > available, regardless of the fact that OnioNS and Namecoin could be > considered competitors. We're all in this together, and I'd love to see > both OnioNS and Namecoin succeed. :) Relatedly -- I had some trouble summarizing some of the items in the Namecoin section because the security, privacy, and scalability properties of Namecoin are somewhat different depending on whether the user is using a full node (downloads the entire blockchain), a FBR-C node (receives full blocks that can contain current name transactions), or a headers-only node (receives only block headers). I didn't want to change the layout of the page much without asking, but would it make sense to split the Namecoin section into multiple sections (a section for each of those node types)? Or is it preferred to keep them in 1 section and say which of the security properties / drawbacks apply to which node types (which is what I've done for the moment)? Cheers, -Jeremy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev