On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Adam Back <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, its the way I would've done it. Actually coincidentally I already did > propose doing it exactly that way in around 1999: > > http://www.cypherspace.org/p2p/auditable-namespace.html > > (That was about censor resistant DNS->ip mapping with public auditability. > And that might still be something to think about with the current us > governments habit of seizing domains without legal due process. Anyway the > same technique should work for public keys ... map a name to its IP address > and the hash of its public key, or its public key. > My view is that these mappings are global and even with legal due process, > you dont want a local legal authority to be able to override a global view. > Global views are conflicting. Even somethings that are forbidden in one > area as may not be forbidden in another, or may even be mandatory! Local > legal conclusions should be advisory for the local area. Modeling government as a threat s a great idea.
Jeff _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
