On 2013-12-14 20:25, Ali-Reza Anghaie wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
> Aside from the tactful / lack thereof issues in the delivery - this is
> a key point not addressed in the proposal. Adoption requires not only
> a State unwilling to quash it but ISPs and other providers willing to
> support it. This isn't just a US issue, it's quite prevalent an issue
> in every moderately to well connected State.
>
>
Its still interesting to consider distributed proof-of-work systems
_like_ bitcoin as a basis for public ledger systems. I realize that this
isn't exactly what this proposal is about.
I also see quite a few challenges with this proposal. For instance I
don't see how running and trusting your own DNSNMC server is
significantly different (or easier) than running and trusting your own CA.
However, distributed systems like this should not be dismissed offhand
as inherently un-deployable by using, what are essentially
guilt-by-association arguments.
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
therightkey@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey
