Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin
Rouben <[email protected]> Thu, 27 Jun 2019 21:48:17 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.opennic.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGShw4nwVFJmDNmHKFZ=R7S6NBHmoj3ya_761vcv9azt3UXHUA@mail.gmail.com> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1561686510-3952-20 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009d9ef4058c58798a" --0000000000009d9ef4058c58798a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 18:48 'smee <[email protected]> wrote: Am I missing anything on the fact that opennic handling .bit domains actively hurts namecoins objectives <snip> In a nutshell, some Namecoin community members don=E2=80=99t like the fact = that OpenNIC DNS servers can be used to de-anonymize .bit domain (owners). Jeff linked to the following article that basically expanded on this claim: https://namecoin.org/2018/09/24/how-centralized-inproxies-make-everyone-les= s-safe-case-study.html That=E2=80=99s my understanding... Rouben On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 18:48 'smee <[email protected]> wrote: > That sums it up pretty well. I'm probably missing something still but > but I can't get past the fact that namecoin sees privacy and censorship > resistance as priorities (not for malware distributors but for people > who are being oppressed or censored) and it seems that opennic handling > .bit domains actually puts people at risk (legitimate activists and > malware distributors alike.) > > Aside from that, I've had malware distributed to me from a domain > hosted on amazonaws, contacted them about it, and got absolutely no > help. So malware can come from anywhere and, in my opinion, these days, > often comes right from microsoft, google, apple, adobe, etc in the form > of ad/spyware. > > Am I missing anything on the fact that opennic handling .bit domains > actively hurts namecoins objectives and doesn't do anything to foster > good will between the two communities, while at the same time might > actually be helping oppressive regimes spy on people who think their > traffic is safe? Sorry if that question sounds like I'm asserting my > view, just clarifying and making sure I'm not misunderstanding > something that could change my view... > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 14:49 -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote: > > It's actually a little more complex than that. From what I've been > > hearing it sounds like some members of Namecoin appreciated the > > service > > while others wanted to remain hidden. There was also quite a bit of > > controversy here on Opennic over the subject. Because of the > > anonymous > > nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real > > person, > > coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those > > domains, > > there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and > > other > > questionable content to other people's computers. > > > > This is where things got ugly... We've had some long discussions, > > both > > here on the mailing list and on IRC chat. Basically this centers > > around > > the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as > > intended without any modifications. However because of the .bit > > domains > > being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and > > the > > mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were > > then > > blacklisted. We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domains > > they > > found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be. > > But > > this goes against the concept of opennic resolving domains without > > interference. There was no argument that it should not be > > Spamhaus's > > place to police the internet, and their methods were essentially > > holding > > some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend to > > their > > will, but there was a lot of debate about whether or not we > > *should*. > > The only compromise we could come to was that the decision should be > > left up to the individual T2 operators, with a method of identifying > > which servers were making use of the blacklist data to modify their > > results. > > > > And so here we are today. What it came down to was that almost > > nobody > > in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to > > see > > if it was worth the effort to keep it around. > > > > Hope that faithfully summarizes the history? > > > > > > > > On 06/27/2019 02:16 AM, 'smee wrote: > > > I also read the list but have yet to contribute anything, and I > > > didn't > > > vote. This issue and how it came up opened my eyes to a few things. > > > On > > > the face of it, it seems obvious. They don't want opennic handling > > > .bit > > > domains and it seems to be of no benefit to opennic to continue > > > doing > > > so. > > > Being not that well versed in the subject, I decided to watch the > > > discussion and learn more, but from the discussion, those two facts > > > don't seem to have changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 22:29 +0200, Al Beano wrote: > > > > Like many others, I'm also alive and reading the mailing list but > > > > didn't vote - mainly because I'm away from home and things were > > > > going > > > > in my favour anyway :-) > > > > > > > > Am 25. Juni 2019 17:48:17 MESZ, schrieb [email protected] > > > > : > > > > > Thanks for the update Jeff. > > > > > > > > > > So only 15 people are active on opennic =F0=9F=98=B2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Mensaje original----- > > > > > De: [email protected] > > > > > <[email protected]> En nombre de Jeff > > > > > Taylor > > > > > Enviado el: martes, 25 de junio de 2019 09:29 a. m. > > > > > Para: OpenNIC discussion <[email protected]> > > > > > Asunto: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with > > > > > NameCoin > > > > > > > > > > With a final vote of 13 to 2, the vote has ended in favor of > > > > > dropping > > > > > namecoin from opennic. I will be updating the glue zone today > > > > > to > > > > > remove .bit, and updating the root zone to drop references to > > > > > namecoin > > > > > and emercoin. Thanks to everyone who cast their vote. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ---- > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected] > > > > proj > > > > ect.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected] > > > > project.org > > > > > > -------- > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected] > > ect.org > > > -------- > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. > You may unsubscribe by emailing > [email protected] > --=20 Rouben --0000000000009d9ef4058c58798a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><div></div></div><div>On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 18:48 'smee <<a h= ref=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">overthefalls= @opengroupware.ch</a>> wrote:<div dir=3D"auto">Am I missing anything on = the fact that opennic handling .bit domains actively hurts namecoins object= ives <snip></div></div><div><br><div dir=3D"auto">In a nutshell, some= Namecoin community members don=E2=80=99t like the fact that OpenNIC DNS se= rvers can be used to de-anonymize .bit domain (owners). Jeff linked to the = following article that basically expanded on this claim:</div></div><div di= r=3D"auto"><div><a href=3D"https://namecoin.org/2018/09/24/how-centralized-= inproxies-make-everyone-less-safe-case-study.html">https://namecoin.org/201= 8/09/24/how-centralized-inproxies-make-everyone-less-safe-case-study.html</= a></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">That=E2=80=99s my und= erstanding...</div><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Rouben</div><div><div><br><d= iv class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun = 27, 2019 at 18:48 'smee <<a href=3D"mailto:overthefalls@opengroupwar= e.ch" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></d= iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left= :1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That sums it up pretty well. I'm prob= ably missing something still but<br> but I can't get past the fact that namecoin sees privacy and censorship= <br> resistance as priorities (not for malware distributors but for people<br> who are being oppressed or censored) and it seems that opennic handling<br> .bit domains actually puts people at risk (legitimate activists and<br> malware distributors alike.)<br> <br> Aside from that, I've had malware distributed to me from a domain<br> hosted on amazonaws, contacted them about it, and got absolutely no<br> help. So malware can come from anywhere and, in my opinion, these days,<br> often comes right from microsoft, google, apple, adobe, etc in the form<br> of ad/spyware. <br> <br> Am I missing anything on the fact that opennic handling .bit domains<br> actively hurts namecoins objectives and doesn't do anything to foster<b= r> good will between the two communities, while at the same time might<br> actually be helping oppressive regimes spy on people who think their<br> traffic is safe? Sorry if that question sounds like I'm asserting my<br> view, just clarifying and making sure I'm not misunderstanding<br> something that could change my view...<br> <br> On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 14:49 -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote:<br> > It's actually a little more complex than that.=C2=A0 From what I&#= 39;ve been=C2=A0<br> > hearing it sounds like some members of Namecoin appreciated the<br> > service=C2=A0<br> > while others wanted to remain hidden.=C2=A0 There was also quite a bit= of=C2=A0<br> > controversy here on Opennic over the subject.=C2=A0 Because of the<br> > anonymous=C2=A0<br> > nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real<br> > person,=C2=A0<br> > coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those<br> > domains,=C2=A0<br> > there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and<br> > other=C2=A0<br> > questionable content to other people's computers.<br> > <br> > This is where things got ugly...=C2=A0 We've had some long discuss= ions,<br> > both=C2=A0<br> > here on the mailing list and on IRC chat.=C2=A0 Basically this centers= <br> > around=C2=A0<br> > the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as= =C2=A0<br> > intended without any modifications.=C2=A0 However because of the .bit<= br> > domains=C2=A0<br> > being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and<br> > the=C2=A0<br> > mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were<br> > then=C2=A0<br> > blacklisted.=C2=A0 We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domain= s<br> > they=C2=A0<br> > found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be.= =C2=A0<br> > But=C2=A0<br> > this goes against the concept of opennic resolving domains without=C2= =A0<br> > interference.=C2=A0 There was no argument that it should not be<br> > Spamhaus's=C2=A0<br> > place to police the internet, and their methods were essentially<br> > holding=C2=A0<br> > some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend= to<br> > their=C2=A0<br> > will, but there was a lot of debate about whether or not we<br> > *should*.=C2=A0=C2=A0<br> > The only compromise we could come to was that the decision should be= =C2=A0<br> > left up to the individual T2 operators, with a method of identifying= =C2=A0<br> > which servers were making use of the blacklist data to modify their<br> > results.<br> > <br> > And so here we are today.=C2=A0 What it came down to was that almost<b= r> > nobody=C2=A0<br> > in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to<br> > see=C2=A0<br> > if it was worth the effort to keep it around.<br> > <br> > Hope that faithfully summarizes the history?<br> > <br> > <br> > <br> > On 06/27/2019 02:16 AM, 'smee wrote:<br> > > I also read the list but have yet to contribute anything, and I<b= r> > > didn't<br> > > vote. This issue and how it came up opened my eyes to a few thing= s.<br> > > On<br> > > the face of it, it seems obvious. They don't want opennic han= dling<br> > > .bit<br> > > domains and it seems to be of no benefit to opennic to continue<b= r> > > doing<br> > > so.<br> > > Being not that well versed in the subject, I decided to watch the= <br> > > discussion and learn more, but from the discussion, those two fac= ts<br> > > don't seem to have changed.<br> > > <br> > > <br> > > <br> > > <br> > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 22:29 +0200, Al Beano wrote:<br> > > > Like many others, I'm also alive and reading the mailing= list but<br> > > > didn't vote - mainly because I'm away from home and = things were<br> > > > going<br> > > > in my favour anyway :-)<br> > > > <br> > > > Am 25. Juni 2019 17:48:17 MESZ, schrieb <a href=3D"mailto:al= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> > > > :<br> > > > > Thanks for the update Jeff.<br> > > > > <br> > > > > So only 15 people are active on opennic =F0=9F=98=B2<br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > -----Mensaje original-----<br> > > > > De: <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ect.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> > > > > <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ect.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>= En nombre de Jeff<br> > > > > Taylor<br> > > > > Enviado el: martes, 25 de junio de 2019 09:29 a. m.<br> > > > > Para: OpenNIC discussion <<a href=3D"mailto:discuss@= lists.opennicproject.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= g</a>><br> > > > > Asunto: Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peer= ing with<br> > > > > NameCoin<br> > > > > <br> > > > > With a final vote of 13 to 2, the vote has ended in fav= or of<br> > > > > dropping<br> > > > > namecoin from opennic.=C2=A0=C2=A0I will be updating th= e glue zone today<br> > > > > to<br> > > > > remove .bit, and updating the root zone to drop referen= ces to<br> > > > > namecoin<br> > > > > and emercoin.=C2=A0=C2=A0Thanks to everyone who cast th= eir vote.<br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------= ------<br> > > > > ----<br> > > > > -------<br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > <br> > > > > --------<br> > > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.<br> > > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing<br> > > > > <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]= ect.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>= <br> > > > <br> > > > --------<br> > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.<br> > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]= ennic<br> > > > proj<br> > > > <a href=3D"http://ect.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_bla= nk">ect.org</a><br> > > > <br> > > > <br> > > > <br> > > > --------<br> > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.<br> > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]= ennic<br> > > > <a href=3D"http://project.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"= _blank">project.org</a><br> > <br> > <br> > --------<br> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=C2=A0<br> > You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]<= br> > <a href=3D"http://ect.org" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ect.or= g</a><br> <br> <br> --------<br> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. <br> You may unsubscribe by emailing <a href=3D"mailto:discuss-unsubscribe@lists= .opennicproject.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= ject.org</a><br> </blockquote></div></div> </div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"g= mail_signature">Rouben</div> --0000000000009d9ef4058c58798a-- ------------=_1561686510-3952-20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -------- You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected] ------------=_1561686510-3952-20--