On 2010-11-24 8:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Successful systems tend to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary when there's a non-trivial ecosystem around them.
The fundamental security flaw is that we have a name system that does not scale. Evolution rather than revolution gets you stuck into non scaling systems.
At some point you have to break compatibility and implement a system that does scale.
The DNS plan was that each entity would have a globally unique human readable name - but in practice, cannot be done
We need a Zooko system, where an entities true name is the hash of the cryptographic rule identifying the entity.
We already largely hide DNS rooted names - one's buddy list, contact list, and bookmarks do not show them, and though they are still displayed on the browser, no one ever looks at that part of the browser, which failure to look is the basis of numerous attacks.
With cryptographic true names, we would have end to end encryption everywhere, which would allow capabilities everywhere. A cryptographic capability is a form of value, thus we would then be transferring value across the internet, which at present we are profoundly reluctant to do.
> Is doing more of what you're already good at necessarily a bad
strategy?
Doing more of what you are good at is a good strategy against nature. Against bad people, it fails.
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
