Am I the only one who's bothered by all the effort to build naming/PKI systems that put, e.g., VeriSign and Google and anyone who compromises them in control of all communications between Alice and Bob?
What I'd like from a naming system is something better, namely maximum security. This concept is explained in, e.g., https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.politics.crypto/bC-4Kt3nUVM/AIOgqVlWoCoJ but I think that most people here already know what it means. The traditional view is that maximum-security decentralized systems can't be usable, so we have to compromise on security, typically by trusting centralized third parties. The reason I'm writing now is that I think most people here haven't yet heard of the GNU Name System, a _usable_ maximum-security decentralized naming system: https://gnunet.org/sites/default/files/paper_cans2014_camera_ready.pdf I don't see any obstacle to taking this approach to naming inside new messaging systems. ---Dan _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
