Matthew Finkel:
Some months ago, the petname system interested me enough that I started
to write a proposal for it. At this point, it's wound up in bitrot.
Though I'd spent a bit of time working on it, there was no comprehensive
way to accomplish it. One thing to remember about petnames is
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 09:56:21PM +0200, Lunar wrote:
Matthew Finkel:
Some months ago, the petname system interested me enough that I started
to write a proposal for it. At this point, it's wound up in bitrot.
Though I'd spent a bit of time working on it, there was no comprehensive
way
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 02:23:55AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
This has the side effect of promoting good onion upkeep.
Which people might be loathe to do given the recent paper
about deanon hidden services seeming to be relatively doable.
At least until those issues are solved...
of the
This has the side effect of promoting good onion upkeep.
Which people might be loathe to do given the recent paper
about deanon hidden services seeming to be relatively doable.
At least until those issues are solved...
of the system. After 6 months (or so) the naming will stabilize and be
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:11:37AM -0400, Griffin Boyce wrote:
Matthew Finkel matthew.fin...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think we should make some terms clear (just for the sake of
clarity). We have, I guess, three different naming-system ideas
floating here: petnames, (distibuted)
adrelanos:
George Kadianakis:
If we move to the higher security of (e.g.) 128-bits, the base32
string
suddenly becomes 26 characters. Is that still conveniently sized to
pass
around, or should we admit that we failed this goal and we are free to
crank up the security to 256-bits
Matthew Finkel matthew.fin...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think we should make some terms clear (just for the sake of
clarity). We have, I guess, three different naming-system ideas
floating here: petnames, (distibuted) namecoin-ish, and centralized
consensus-based - rough summary.
Some months
