On 13/01/10 08:31, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: > I think you've lost the reason why the original poster of this thread has > proposed FreeNS, that was because it's cumbersome to give out USK keys to > people, and it would be better to give some easy to remember name that would > almost definitely redirect to the specific key.
I was responding to your question. In what way have I "lost the reason of [etc]"? The whole point of "names" is to make it easy to find things. There's no difference between typing/copying a string into the "search" box and typing it into the "fetch" box. > The essential part here is that there should be a very high chance that the > name will mean the same thing in the *future* for a *different* person as it > currently does for you. Why should this be? The whole idea of naming things is subjective, and people will disagree on things. Anyone can call anything by any name; this should only carry as much authority (for me) as I agree to. > If i suspect that somebody will have the possibility to disallow me to use > that name (whether because they believe i do not deserve that name or > because they think that they have a right to stop people from visiting my > site) then i will not give out the name and will be forced to continue to > use USK. This possibility could be reduced by social-network based naming schemes. > Creating some very complex system just so that it will be possible to say on > freenetproject.org "We now have a DNS-like system. Thanks to A, B, C, ... > X, Y, and Z" is useful only for the vanity of those who did that work. Now > it's not a bad thing if the alternative (easier, simpler, and better) > solution did not exist... but one does. Hah, that is the furthest reason why i'm working on freenet and related things. Please don't throw around accusations of "vanity" just because it's an idea you don't like. At least explain why you think I'm being vain. > P.S. Yes i do understand that somebody could potentially start inserting > fake KSK blocks into the same key that was redirecting to a specific site, > and people will probably start doing that, but we are talking about abusing > the system... and not building the censorship mechanism into Freenet. This is naive and I'm surprised an anarchist would make such arguments. The law is "supposed" to be protective but it gets abused all too often. Why do you suppose that a social-network based system would lead to increased censorship? What do you even mean by "censorship"? X
