> And for someone who is accusing others of being 'fraudulent', not a good move > to start off repeating figures already exposed as bogus like the oft repeated > but still untrue claim of 600 CAs.
I thought the EFF was a reputable source. There has been no update or correction to their post: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/how-secure-https-today If this information is incorrect please provide a link with more details. If the EFF is wrong about this, then I'll make sure to update the paper. > Tying the notary log to namecoin seems to be completely pointless to me, > unless the real objective is to promote namecoin. Why hook into namecoin > rather than the market leader? What market leader? > Given the success of the US government in shutting down eGold type schemes I > am very skeptical about the stability of 'namecoin'. If we accept the > purported scenarios that motivate the scheme then namecoin won't last very > long. What eGold scheme are you comparing Namecoin to? Are you sure you know what you're talking about here...? ;-) Cheers, Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. On Dec 14, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > "The first project, DNSNMC, deprecates today's insecure and fraudulent1 > public key infrastructure (PKI) by gracefully transitioning DNS from its > hierarchical design, to one that is based on a globally distributed, > peer-to-peer network that successfully "squares Zooko's triangle"" > > I think you have lost me already. If you want to get anywhere with a proposal > probably not a good idea to accuse the people who might implement it as being > 'fraudulent'. > > > "We use the term “meaningful security” to refer to the security provided by > protocols that employ all of these features for communication between > individuals." > > Have you paused to consider the reasons why the market has not adopted the > security mechanisms then embody those principles to date? Designing a spec > that provides more security if used is trivial. The hard part is proposing > something that is secure and usable. > > > And for someone who is accusing others of being 'fraudulent', not a good move > to start off repeating figures already exposed as bogus like the oft repeated > but still untrue claim of 600 CAs. > > Tying the notary log to namecoin seems to be completely pointless to me, > unless the real objective is to promote namecoin. Why hook into namecoin > rather than the market leader? > > > Given the success of the US government in shutting down eGold type schemes I > am very skeptical about the stability of 'namecoin'. If we accept the > purported scenarios that motivate the scheme then namecoin won't last very > long. > > The fact that BitCoin has survived this long is rather surprising. We have > already seen a huge robbery of over $200 million in bitcoin (from a drug > dealer). And now we have people trying to de-anonymize the system to stop the > coins being spent (!) > > When the feds moved on the e-Gold crowd they started off by rolling up the > small guys and created a crisis of confidence in the big ones. What would be > the effect on the price of Bitcoin if the feds shut down namecoin using the > same tactics they used against mega-upload? I don't think it would take much > to start a run. > > > _______________________________________________ > therightkey mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ therightkey mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
