Re: [opennic-discuss] Vote to keep or drop peering with NameCoin

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1561687506-3952-21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was using my own .bit domains frequently via OpenNIC, before I learned th=
e Namecoin way and I do it that way now (which is better anyway for many re=
asons including security).

I raised a "who the hell is Spamhaus and why are they telling us what to do=
" back when that happened, and voted against the optional blacklist. Fusl (=
I think) told me who Spamhaus were and why they mattered to OpenNIC.

To me it's part of a greater problem - censorship from companies, especiall=
y in the tech industry, who are more concerned with morality than deliverin=
g a packet to its destination and a profit to their shareholders, in this c=
ase the morality of malware, ransom, and spam rather than the morality of p=
olitical causes, politicians, and conspiracy theories.

Don't know if anyone missed this question, I asked during the vote, and nob=
ody answered me, the concerns with child pornography and malware that were =
brought up, aren't we protected by safe harbor laws like CDA 230 and the DM=
CA, and the equivalent of those in the EU and elsewhere?

--

-Dan Q


On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:49:45 -0600, Jeff Taylor <[email protected]> wro=
te:

> It's actually a little more complex than that.=C2=A0 From what I've been=
=20
> hearing it sounds like some members of Namecoin appreciated the service=20
> while others wanted to remain hidden.=C2=A0 There was also quite a bit of=
=20
> controversy here on Opennic over the subject.=C2=A0 Because of the anonym=
ous=20
> nature of .bit domains with absolutely no connection to a real person,=20
> coupled with opennic's distribution making it easy to use those domains,=
=20
> there were a number of .bit domains being used to send malware and other=
=20
> questionable content to other people's computers.
>=20
> This is where things got ugly...=C2=A0 We've had some long discussions, b=
oth=20
> here on the mailing list and on IRC chat.=C2=A0 Basically this centers ar=
ound=20
> the idea that everyone wants opennic to freely resolve everything as=20
> intended without any modifications.=C2=A0 However because of the .bit dom=
ains=20
> being used to distribute malware they got picked up by Spamhaus and the=20
> mail servers attached to the same IPs as opennic DNS resolvers were then=
=20
> blacklisted.=C2=A0 We worked with Spamhaus to get a list of the domains t=
hey=20
> found problems with, and that's when our own blacklist came to be.=C2=A0 =
But=20
> this goes against the concept of opennic resolving domains without=20
> interference.=C2=A0 There was no argument that it should not be Spamhaus'=
s=20
> place to police the internet, and their methods were essentially holding=
=20
> some of our servers 'hostage' in an effort to force us to bend to their=20
> will, but there was a lot of debate about whether or not we *should*.=C2=
=A0=20
> The only compromise we could come to was that the decision should be=20
> left up to the individual T2 operators, with a method of identifying=20
> which servers were making use of the blacklist data to modify their resul=
ts.
>=20
> And so here we are today.=C2=A0 What it came down to was that almost nobo=
dy=20
> in opennic is actually using .bit domains, so a vote was called to see=20
> if it was worth the effort to keep it around.
>=20
> Hope that faithfully summarizes the history?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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.=C2=A0=C2=A0I will be updating the glue zone to=
day to
> >>> remove .bit, and updating the root zone to drop references to
> >>> namecoin
> >>> and emercoin.=C2=A0=C2=A0Thanks 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]
> >> ect.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------
> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]=
ct.org
>=20
>=20
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.=20
> You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected].=
org



------------=_1561687506-3952-21
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]

------------=_1561687506-3952-21--